Steeaaneage 
: ie 
4 +e 

; | pe 

f 3 
tan, 


il 


ceed smo 
Ae Ee Die ae 
2 
Jae see 
— = 
wor \oyjareemn sos 
a 
me 
ee 
—— - 
— 
- ee 
_————— 
-: ——— * 
- — 
> 
= eee 
-_ —— 
See. 5 te enn Sener aaa ERENIeNODNENes Sermemet 


———s 
———ew = 
— ieee = 
—— waromee Ho ne ae 
: = ——a 
—=— = = = 
Seems Samm meal 
—— = one — ~ — = 
anne ~ me . oe 
Repatenentens ne teenie Riotetaee anche 
> Ssrrenaaanoe one : 
= — Senne pe nee ee NTR RSTO e EE TTNEEN | ee 
a aE ten Re a ROE Sprosconnnneraeenporenmnsntorenennen ——— 

Scene cere SRE aN ee - 
ers nn ARN ARTS EAN NT A AN NS eee one Toeryaraeamnaaneeaatwnanomeenaerostasasemmeeneneaneeeenonoeeee » meee 
ene Seen Se renner a = 

ae enna anes ieat Leen renner ne Soe 
= See 6 eee Seeteireeanenrentvioevener rere oan aenatnneenewen vee nee ~ 
SS en nnnen isdreennaaahohecanecouonernctauenn ta een menneeeaeanneey ft 
oo hmong _ aa ao aan ne er eenernnraene renee meeeme 
= = re renciercennnntebeeneremeynaverenrins eee eee eS 
se SSiateseremeercnseen eno neuen a = — 
SOS SESS aw anaes tame nan ene ene caer rc erarnacaerean a arnenserianeneaeareaanE > aeiaenna ra 
- ids: Neuarecoeeeneneboemeenaes nea penne ne aero enna ore ceanneeneeneeaneananeeneneramareeereoee en 
2  Semenen nee aE SET = 
ner ae aaa eee enone eRe RSENS TTRAASaNany epee Sane Soe nee nee NaRDETS Seenaneeenaeneaeeennnnneeenen some 
So en Seeeteertncnannciepassanstansneanepsanssiaseanninasyeseapeicasaneeemninee ar er eee Seema aehne ries areeeeeaneenannaesersenannenetetets <n in 
- Piaavenee vaneare yeoman nenoeenncncnane ewan ow . = 
IO na gp 9 a nt nt nee ene ITER NNI LAREN TApeae ea nas aerwrensaatamanearocaeenonsraumnaerarisuereraanacomenaumennennnsente Soe ——— 
a, | We nee neenpnee nen antn eee aee aS NSeNaneN eae 
anette tassneensseaessanensneanassssssusesenasesannmersnnesesatneenneeenrremneet (aor pesuaeeenriraetrearawe owe = 
- SN eee tenn ok aN : 
= eee rere a eneaeenennaenameneannernanteh oerenenn 2 — 
res or Seen mae oneness ——- 
= ea eeeeeeoeniseaacceneeasetatensspeenteeieseneerennatat = 
SS SS Erereeeeierenenesi)poesmuenanenneseenrel oceans aeons een ee enenace ne a . 
o aes paciemmnennserneeseaetiseiaeinceatenann = 
SSS ee aaa See nnaneinaees See mee nennnenneieaneens 
en nt en ee ee eee ere cenenan eae en = 
eee areres — = 
—— Seen eener ewe ye rece ee sernes naeacaa no renters canara nee = 
nee NaS RN A A RN NCR STN TEENEEE Se reeennennnsceemnpeaneeaasiens = 
LO eae aren Sate eee aNNNLLETRINNT SA ee ONAN ENGST eee” oe 
fa eer ra eee Tn nae a an NT ee Te TEceNee eee TanvaaeaTeareeenIneeeENeeonee _pammweneerne 
ne ranean Spummessesesanpanmenssamanonatsseenpemreeetinetaeateteteoenieoeee ep ee eT TRE eal . 
ne re ree nen aereneeenenerrare neem ease taekanaer=nrateaes nentenaeNeee Pertwee nna yaeat Sane ke garaeaaany = aveaeaereaanareraeneeetatieeenaneasnncsomameoeeaeon | onneenen 
Se seen aneancene anasenrnipnans ee meee WemaasareenaTananentnaeaeeeenaenseaeeeeaancenueeranrseeoerenmeesenooeerrs ——oo . 
Se eee ae eee ne emma nnnene en OmnSES ; 
5 a ererere a neenemenenerenesienenceinnennnemtie re . 
a ene — E 3 eee | nen . 
SS ee Jericcoeosepenoeetesoionaneerinmenrenenoeermeren eer ep r en ne LAE LOT . 
—— Troronaeneaneeetaeemnnanionoeantontmiearceeent een el ne ALAA AA 
nents —— . 
SEE _aocssesecnenosnsssoeunsaunninasansuaneeaasagensseaeenmeeny fi emeeomnciae Steen cite 
nr eee 
weewes | cneememmennmeneinranana men See ene emnennrretennenaaeeeerasant > a 
Se eerennareserseninelsi eee entre nara rorenanenonawanantaimene ns metnalaneraaaeermeeere 
—— caanemacenvepacancncmee | enna . 
nner eerarnessnacenanrneen Tst9s4fanerenanearraat re namnrnntt enwouneentseasetantvesaatarin opaenar=aaeneertaanaresenynostomneeeaTnatameoawemraiewwnrtenenemree | veenennnnennn 
Pa on en ne  Sacanemanone ne eon saneon vee enenseneey = . 
—~-- = tne ee TA TERRE RONEN omen eeee 
eee rr nnens na eoreeneennewenn ea 
: cevennencneenvecnarmeenn | Yanenponee ee . 
SSS eee an jopnupernnetiereaeneepoenperieepiereneteaeeailbcaemssemanann . 
SS = oreaesenenenes een eA gCeNCNaeene | een ‘ 
ee a ee nae eas ' 
= anes neta eee an enn enaee eee Pep eee RNa eT eae TenNnAERoateETTnENeonNnnnaneoNIoeeenee wenrannenne . 
ee Scoeapemenrsoonnnsnoeennsenerassesspeeeeteeetenereeerteereeeee ee ne AAA ; 
See - 
SSS Eee —— —— Se : 
rn mnrenrnennenianrsery renee cocngnenene ee een ven  eneeaeneeentnaaeee Team ———— ee . 
memes arepnemnnennen emer ea anatny a erence ngnarnoreasnaneneneammnreyenan (oouboneceapesretuereeptennpruranarennnen ant 
nat meneame sneer esntnhnen ip st meeenaraeacnsnnensoreeremncwesnmemmaeencotomencanmon een aan nnn onan ene ee | See NNR Ae aaneaNeeeeTeaSN Nome wonton : 
See eens trate Ah eee NRE ONaNapeNnannNpeeneerenen aevascanen veerenatavenieunain events veanre wanweereme Verges : 
a aR oa ae Neem aoe pe ie 
aes eee a a es eee eaaueTeaennenenene ne senna aoennnenr anne . - : 
ores | arene menor semen ‘ 
antennae 
— acme —— : 
Sennen seaman ianonermnene >< anne : 
See = - ——V~ oe) ie 
oo eee warone - =. 
SSO nm = —. : 
—S — jeer aapoerenven ————_—-- = . 
Sree a nen neenremannnonae ene 
ae reer nanan e—rannerens = is 
a ecm nome ae ———— : 
ennai) eae —— : 
eens — : — i 
~~ = ee : 
~~ ——— > Stee pane gros pies 
peo —— ; 
nee ns = r overs 
- ——S = see ETT 
ivisioas 25S Sah emrnestes oor ant arama nade gaay aa 
ates. cena note vow =. 
ee ee pueenmnaate ae —__ atone 
aa — es 
=== = — at = —- =. = 
= - = —- = 
= eee ee 
4 : = 
one ‘ — 
SN 


ta Prin : 


CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY : 


A Vindication 


OF THE 


DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 


GEOUNDED ON THE 


HISTORICAL VERITY OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 


By WILLIAM LINDSAY ALEXANDER, D.D. 


Mere guess, supposition, and possibility, when opposed to historical evidence, 
prove nothing but that historical evidence is not demonstrative.-—Butier, Anal- 
ogy, Part ITI, e. 7, 


The character of the true philosopher is to hope all things not impossible, and 
to believe all things not unreasonable.—HERSOHELL, Discourse, p. 8 


NEW YORE: 
CARETON., & “LAN AD AN 


CINCINNATI : 
PLT CRCOCK  & WALDEN: 


S83 
f 


FESR OR TNL «te 
, res a RS 


cs 4 


. ee a en : ae Saft er : : 
Re kn RR Oe VAM Eh ai AN ended he ag ie ; - 
: : F : : ¥ ee) 
i ‘ a a * y : ken cae : rol 
Ah aeca! _- EDs * 4: ‘ cy . : y feu ; ‘ 


: ; , M . cee y we 
re +h5 Ses a Pore ; —— P ‘ 


+) Cie ob Keer aeniss iso pairiéy/ a} ical r autth anova, Listes athe ioe : 
Ne Lie! eer 4 he? on 4! ape {day Ie +) qi 
‘ ale } 0 — ms } 


i gt 
Meese ne a i Se a “f Fe. Pe ie 35 fs sai 
: Ke il Tua ate Bs) wre whe 
hi = : Foray ! 
= eeu eee 


2 
Seay 
f 


£4 vr 

ss ti 
ae 
oe; 
' 
f J 
ats 

J . 

a. 


PREFACE. 


I po not offer this book to the public as one which pretends to 
set forth anything substantially new in support of the divine 
origin and authority of Christianity. At the same time, I am 
not aware that the materials of which my argument is con- 
structed have been previously put before the public in exactly 
the same form. : 

My aim has been, by a process of strictly inductive reason- 
ing, to place the claims of Christianity upon a solid philosoph- 
ical basis. J have argued exclusively from facts ; and both in 
the preparation of these facts, and in reasoning from them, I 
have sought to keep close by those established laws of scientific 
investigation which all men engaged in inquiries where hypoth- 
esis is requisite are taught to reverence as the only safe guides 
to knowledge. 

I have endeavoured also to make my researches bear upon 
the more recent forms of infidelity in this country and on the 
continent.* I have felt it necessary to enter particularly upon 
the theory of Strauss respecting the origin of the Gospels, 
partly because his work is, I understand, much read in certain 
circles, and partly because, in the strictures which have been 


* The last edition of Mr. Newman’s “ Phases of Faith” having reached 
me as this work was passing through the press, I had intended noticing 
in the Appendix his extraordinary and revolting chapter on the Moral 
Character of Christ. In the mean time, however, I learned that the 
author of the “Eclipse of Faith” had taken Mr. Newman’s work in 
hand, and I therefore gladly relinquished to his able pen the task of 
dealing with that sad chapter as it deserved. I am happy I did so: my 
friend has done the work in a style which renders it superfluous for any 
other writer to touch it. 


4 PREFACE. 


offered upon it by some recent writers in this country, the hy- 
pothesis actually advanced by Strauss does not appear to me 
to have been accurately apprehended. 

There are some, in the present day, who profess to be, and 
I have no doubt are, sincere believers in Christianity, who 
affect to speak depreciatingly of the historical evidence of that 
religion. From anything I have seen of what they propose to 
substitute in the place of this, I cannot say that I have been 
impressed with any profound sense of respect either for their 
judgment or their powers of reasoning. Still it does surprise 
me that in men of piety the mere religious instinct has not 
been sufficiently powerful to make them shrink from treating 
with disrespect the evidence to which Christ and his apostles, 
not chiefly, but exclusively, appeal in support of the claims of 
the religion they taught. 

I have only to add, that, in the first part of the argument, I 
have made free use of two articles which I contributed to the 
British Quarterly Review some years ago: the one on Strauss’s 
“Life of Jesus critically considered ;”* the other on Norton’s 
valuable work on “The Genuineness of the Gospels.” The 
former of these was, I believe, the earliest, and it still remains 
the fullest, examination of the Straussian hypothesis which has 
appeared in this country. ‘ 

PinkIE Burn, 13/h January, 1854. 


* T perceive that, of those who have animadverted on Strauss in this 
country, two have blamed him severely for calling his work “A Life of 
Jesus.’ This is unfair. Strauss does not pretend to write a life of 
Jesus. The title of his book is Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet-— 
literally, The Life of Jesus critically worked at; which accurately 
enough describes his design. His aim is not to write a Life of Jesus, 
but to subject to a destructive criticism the Life of Jesus furnished by 
the evangelists. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. .....5.ccccosccssccssseccseccversecsees § O 


PART I. 
PROOF THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE. 


CHAPTER I. 


PHETUMIy Cre RE A SONINGG «iis cg scssndewes cow conwseode vov.sewkes see ond cadeeseve’ LO 


CHAPTER II. 


ARGUMENT FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS FROM 
THE FACT OF THEIR UNIVERSAL RECEPTION IN THE CHRISTIAN 
CHURCH TOWARD THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY........... 23 


CHAPTER III. 


DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE FOUR GOS 
PELS FROM WRITERS ANTECEDENT TO THE LAST QUARTER OF 
PH EMA SECONDS OPN TUR Y cccacecs ces cotleleeacitas neces seein ceedescteb eons OO 


CHAPTER IV. 


IF THE GOSPELS ARE NOT GENUINE, HOW DID THEY ORIGINATE? 
HYPOTHESIS OF AN ORIGINAL GOSPEL WHICH HAS BEEN INTER- 
BOEATED), oo: sey cemasminse san ake oceans ue tedevenmaue sauna wuniee ean a eaten Gee 


CHAPTER V. 


THE MYTHIC HYPOTHESIS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS......... 92 


6 CONTENTS. 


PART IL. 


PROOF FROM CERTAIN FACTS RECORDED IN THE GOSPELS 
THAT CHRISTIANITY IS DIVINE. 


CHAPTER I. 
PAGE 
ARGUMENT FROM THE PERSONAL CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST AS 
PRESENTED BY THE EVANGELISTS.ic.. cccccccecctoccecovccecscccceccece L29 
CHAPTER IL 
ARGUMENT FROM THE MIRACULOUS EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST 
NARRATED BY THE EVANGELISTS... .....0ccoosecccces ccosoecccccceccere LOS 


CHAPTER IIL. 


ARGUMENT FROM THE PREDICTIONS UTTERED BY OHRIST AS RE- 


CORDED BY) THE EV ANGELIGTS $y c0<.c du das vo ccccaso vee soccdecnscvaaveves QOD 
CHAPTER IV. 
ARGUMENT FROM THE PUBLIC TEACHING OF OHRIST AS A HER- 
ALD OF DIVINE A EEU URE cs irateinc shay su bidya lagna swaieeleeel Amba eadae eee 


MNCL LON oe cccahe Rasiya yataciear tise uccn cack OD 


enscaaaie 
APPENDIX. 
NOTE A. JUSTIN MARTYR’S QUOTATIONS FROM TIE GOSPEL........ 295 
NOTE B, /CTRAUBS “ON TREN MUG: cdursur sginosyes soe soviese oes sad bos bel 297 
NOTE ©. STRAUSS ON THE TESTIMONY OF HERACLEON AND OTHERS 
TO JOHN’S GOSPEL... 00. .0000 occ ece ais ofesereciancigs ane asietecn occas Cate ee OD 
NOTE! D. DEFINITION “OF A’ MIRAGULM, 5.03.0. soe see secede sdocee create B08 


00 000 000 Coe C00 vee O00 Oe oe 000 one cee cee @0e eee see 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 


Ir must be admitted by all thoughtful persons, that 
no question can be proposed, more worthy of being 
carefully considered and deliberately settled, than 
that which respects the truth of the religion of 
Jesus Christ. On no other question do interests so 
numerous and so awful hang, as are suspended on 
this. If Christianity be true, it is the one religion 
for man ; for its claims being absolute and exclusive, 
if it is admitted to be true, it must be accepted as 
alone true—as the sole and perfect system of re- 
ligious belief—the single trustworthy guide to im- 
mortality which is within the reach of man. On 
this supposition, to reject it or treat it with neglect 
is to remove the last hope of beatitude or of safety 
in that eternity which lies before us. Again, if 
Christianity is not true, it is desirable that this 
should be settled upon solid and satisfactory grounds; 
for while, on the one hand, it would be a pity that 
so many should be resting upon a delusion, it is, on 
the other hand, unworthy of an intelligent man to 
reject such a system as this without being convinced, 


8. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 


on the most satisfactory grounds, that it deserves to 
be rejected. Of all, then, whether inclined to be 
the enemies, or professing to be the adherents of 
Christianity, this question demands the conscientious 
scrutiny ;—of the latter, that their faith may not rest 
on mere tradition ; of the former, that they may not 
be hastily seduced into a course which may turn 
out one of sin and folly, as well as of irreparable 
disaster. 

To those, indeed, who have previously embraced 
the religion of Jesus Christ, there is a species of 
evidence arising from within their own souls, which 
may seem to render them independent of any con- 
sideration of the objective evidences of our faith. 
Such have a witness in their own hearts. Truth, 
like light, carries its own evidence with it; and es- 
pecially in the case of moral truth, there is a certain 
response yielded by the inner man to the enunciation 
of what is true, which, to the mind that is the sub- 
ject of it, is often the strongest of all confirmations. 
In a scheme like Christianity, moreover, which pro- 
fesses to furnish a method of satisfying the religious 
wants, and furthering the religious interests of man- 
kind, there is an opportunity afforded to those who 
embrace it of putting its pretensions, in this respect, 
to the test; and when it is found experimentally to 
answer to its pretensions,—when it is found actually 
to perform what it offers to perform, the man in 
whom the experiment had been conducted cannot 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. am) 


but feel that he has in himself an evidence of the 
truth of the system, to which he may with the ut- 
most confidence appeal. But while admitting all 
this, I would nevertheless contend that no Christian 
can wisely, or even safely, neglect the study of those 
evidences of our religion, which go to prove it true 
antecedent to the personal reception of it by the 
individual. Let it be remembered that whatever 
evidence personal experience can convey to a man’s 
own mind, it is only to himself that such evidence 
is addressed, and it cannot be made available for 
the service of the gospel beyond the narrow sphere 
of his individual convictions. Let it be remembered, 
also, that Christianity comes to us in an objective 
form—in the form of a book; that, therefore, it is 
not only bound to bring with it such evidence as 
shall entitle it to speak to us authoritatively, but 
that the sure and orderly process for us is to insist 
upon its satisfying us on this point before we listen 
to it; and that when this is not done, there will 
always remain a weak point in our foundation, of 
which the adversary may find means to avail him- 
self for our own discomfort, and the injury of our 
cause. And, in fine, let it be remembered, that as 
it is not only to certain cardinal verities that the 
Christian must yield his cordial assent, but to ald 
tings which are written in the book in which the 
development of Christianity is contained ; it is only 
as he is satisfied, on solid grounds, that the book, as 


10 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 


a book, is entitled to his homage, that he will be 
prepared to bow to it with that docility which is 
required. or his own sake, then, for the sake of 
the cause of Christianity, as well as for the sake of 
those who may be yet opposing themselves to the 
truth, it behooves the Christian to make himself 
familiar with the evidences of his religion, that he 
may not only be himself well established in the 
faith, but be “ready always to give an answer to 
every man that asketh the reason of the hope that 
is in him, with meekness and fear.” 

The subject of the evidences of Christianity is a 
very copious one, embracing several departments, 
and receiving contributions from numerous different 
sources. It is not my intention in this treatise to go 
beyond the exposition of one single line of argument; 
which I have selected, partly because of its intrinsic 
weight and interest, partly because it has not been so 
frequently dwelt upon, or so fully treated by those 
who have written on the evidences, as have other 
branches of the subject. 

Of the argument I mean to pursue, a brief con- 
spectus may thus be given :— 

1. In the four Gospels certain things are set 
forth which, ¢f true, render it indubitable that 
Christianity has come from above. 

2. But these things must be true from the neces- 
sity of the case, because of the impossibility of their 
being fabrications, 7f the Gospels were really written 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 11 


by the men whose names they bear, and were re- 
ceived in the early Churches as authentic narratives 
of our Lord’s life and actions. 

3. But these Gospels were written by those to 
whom they are ascribed; and were universally ac- 
cepted in the early Churches as such. 

4, It follows that the statements they contain are 
true, and, consequently, that the religion they intro- 
duce is divine. 

Such is the argument in substance which it shall 

be my endeavour to sustain. It rests the defence 
of Christianity upon two leading positions,—the 
genuineness of the Gospels,—and the truths of the 
statements they contain, and the representations 
they make, as consequent upon their genuineness. 
These two things proved, this argument infers the 
truth of the Christian religion as a consequence fol- 
lowing irresistibly from them. The course obviously 
to be taken, then, in presenting the argument for the 
consideration of the reader, is, in the first instance, 
to prove the genuineness of the four Gospels, and 
having established that, to take up those parts of 
their contents, of which it is affirmed that, if true, 
they prove the truth of Christianity, and show first 
that they are true, and then, that being true, they 
carry with them evidence that Christianity is divine. 

The advantage of such an argument as this is, 
that it takes nothing for granted, except those 
natural principles of belief which are assumed in all 


12 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 


reasoning, and those fundamental truths of natural 
religion which are admitted by all men who are not 
avowed atheists. With persons of this latter class I 
have, in the present instance, no argument. We set 
out with the assumption that man is a religious being; 
and that there is a God, in the knowledge, worship, 
and service of whom, man finds the proper object of 
his religious tendencies. It is assumed also, that as 
God has made man, he is able to communicate his 
will to man, in a form eapable of being committed 
to writing, and so of being preserved from age to age; 
and further, that as man very much needs to be in- 
structed on religious subjects, it is a thing not only 
greatly to be desired that God would send to him 
such a revelation of his will, but a thing in the 
highest degree probable, that a just and benevolent 
being, as God is, will send to his creatures such a 
message. Beyond these elementary and purely 
preliminary assertions, I ask nothing to be conceded 
before addressing myself to my argument. To all 
who are prepared to admit them, Christianity offers 
herself as the revelation which God has actually 
sent to man; and it is at this point that the defend- 
ers of her claims can alone be summoned to enter 
the field. From this point, however, they must 
make good their cause by vindicating every position 
they advance by sound and fair reasoning. 


ON NNN NORA N IRR. OPAPP LID NA NPR APRN PPA DOA ARP NPP APPAR APPR IRLARI A  t 


PA TeP oT, 


PROOF THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE. 


SRD NS REN NCR ERS AASNPRPR APRA NPR PAIR PRIN INAS” ALAGR GARR IRINA R IRL” PRGA Pra 


Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostre cognovimus, quam per 
eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc praeco- 
niaverunt; postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradi- 


derunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostre futuram. 


Inenaus, Adv. Heer., 1. 3, ¢. 1. 


CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


PanTeig 


Tue first question which it behooves us to discuss in 
the process of argumentation I have delineated, re- 
spects the genwineness of the four Gospels. 

Now the case submitted here is this :—Among’ 
the literary remains of antiquity we possess four 
short treatises, professing to give an account of the 
personal history of the Author of Christianity, and 
purporting to be written by individuals who were 
either his personal attendants while he was upon 
earth, or had received their information from those 
who were such. And the question we have to con- 
sider is: Have we sufficient reason for believing 
that these treatises were actually written by these 
individuals, or must we regard them as the produc- 
tion of a later age forged in their names? 

The former of these positions it is the design of 
the following pages to maintain, by showing that we 
have abundant reason for receiving these treatises 
as genuine. 


16 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER I. 


* PRELIMINARY REASONINGS. 


In proceeding to defend the genuineness of the Gos- 
pels, I venture to observe, that a candid inquirer, 
in looking into these treatises, can hardly fail to be 
struck with the fact that, if they are forgeries, they 
have been executed with sengular dexterity. It re- 
quires but little reflection to perceive that to com- 
pose a writing in the name of another person, so as 
to have any chance of really passing for his, is, 
under any circumstances, a task of considerable 
difficulty. Before this can be done, the forger must 
place himself in the exact position of the party he 
seeks to personate, so as to look at everything from 
his point of view; he must make himself familiar 
with all the events, localities, usages, and persons, 
with which or with whom the party whose name he 
uses is known to have been familiar, while, on the 
other hand, he must studiously suppress all knowl- 
edge of his own, such as that party could not have 
possessed; he must imbue himself with all the pecu- 
liar prejudices and habits of thought of his model, 
so as naturally to express himself on all occasions 
as the other would have done; and he must take 
care that his language and style are exactly such as 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 17 


an individual, placed in the circumstances pretended 
would have employed. To do all this is, under any 
circumstances, I say, a difficult task; but the diffi- 
culty becomes greatly enhanced when the party who 
is supposed to write has been long dead, was a for- 
eigner, and used a very peculiar dialect, now almost 
obsolete, lived amid circumstances which have en- 
tirely passed away, occupied a position so peculiar 
that it can never be occupied again, and moved 
amid scenes and localities which the hand of time 
or the violence of man has greatly altered. To sus- 
tain accurately the character of such a one in the 
composition of a treatise that shall, not only with 
the mob, but with sound judges, pass for his, is a 
task which, I venture to say, it is beyond the power 
of any man to achieve. Certain it is, that, unless 
the case before us form an exception, the thing never 
has been done. Many literary forgeries have been 
uttered, some for amusement, some with a desire to 
deceive; but ¢nvariably the deception has been de- 
tected by some departures, more or less, from what 
consistency required. Even where the manner, style, 
opinions, and prejudices of the party to whom the 
writing is ascribed have been successfully copied, it 
has almost, without exception, been found impossi- 
ble for the real author so thoroughly to evacuate his 
mind of his own peculiarities as not to make uncon- 
sciously some unlucky transference of these to his 
subject, by which he has been detected. In regard 


to these documents, however, the forgery—if they 
9 


a 


18 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


are forgeries—has been so skilfully managed, that 
nothing incongruous with the known circumstances 
of the pretended authors has ever been detected. 
They come before us as the productions of Jewish 
Christians, or they give us the accounts of Jewish 
Christians, who were living in Palestine at the be- 
ginning of the Christian era; and, with this assump- 
tion, everything in them tallies. Their authors look 
at things exactly as a Jew who had embraced Chris- 
tianity would at that peculiar crisis look at them. 
They indicate a-living familiarity with localities, 
usages, ceremonies, and persons existing in Judea at 
that time, such as only a native of Judea could be 
supposed to possess. They employ a dialect which 
any one but a Jew of the first century would have 
found it as difficult to imitate as it would be for a 
German to write in one of the provincial dialects 
of England, or an Englishman to write in the patois 
of France or Switzerland.* With a boldness that 
in a forger would amount to foolhardiness, they mul- 
tiply the chances of detection by detailing minute 
circumstances and particulars; yet not one of these 
can be shown to indicate a later age than that sup- 


* Winer, who has studied the New Testament dialect with more 
success than any before him, pronounces it “a Judaized Greek, 
which to the native Greeks was for the most part unintelligible, 
and an object of their contempt.”— Grammatik des Neutest. Spra- 
chidioms, u. s. w., § 38. The learned L. de Dieu goes the length of 
asserting that “it would be easier for Europeans to imitate the 
elegance of Plato and Aristotle, than for Plato and Aristotle to in- 
terpret the New Testament for us.” —Praef. ad. Gram. Or. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 19 


posed, not one of them can be proved to be errone- 
ously described, while some of them are described 
with a peculiarity of exactness such as bespeaks 
the presence of one actually living at the time and 
among the objects to which he refers.* That these 
circumstances prove that the Gospels were written 
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is not averred. 
But they do prove that if these treatises are for- 
geries, they are the most marvellously ingenious 
forgeries the world has ever seen. They prove, 
further, that the hypothesis which would ascribe 
the composition of these Gospels to some literary 
Gentile Christians of the latter part of the second 
century, is, under whatever form it may assume, ut- 
terly in€redible. That one Gentile Christian could 
at that period so exactly personate a Jew living in 
Judea a century or a century and a half before, is a 
thing hardly within the limits of possibility. That 
Jour Gentile Christians should do this, and all with 
equal success, is what no sound mind can believe. 
Having thus ascertained that no antecedent objec- 
tion arising from the books themselves lies in the 
way of our examining into their authenticity, but 
rather that the preliminary probability inclines the 
other way, we may now proceed to ask, What evi- 
dence of a direct kind can these writings supply of 
their genuineness? what vouchers can they adduce, 


“See the admirable observations on this head by Hug, Intro- 
duction, p. 12, ff. Fosdick’s Translation ; also Horne’s Introd., vol. i, 
p. 89, ff., eighth edition. 


20 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


on the ground of which we, in these later ages, may 
receive them as the productions of the men whose 
names they bear ? 

Now, the proper evidence of the genuineness of 
a book is that it has from the first been received as 
genuine by those whose opportunities best fitted 
them to judge, and whose private interests did not 
incline them to a hasty or prejudiced decision on 
the subject. If, in addition to this, it can be shown 
that the book has been accepted as genuine by great 
numbers of people, living at considerable distances 
from each other, or spread over an extensive terri- 
tory, between whom there could be no collusion, but 
who, on the contrary, would be sure to be brought 
into keen antagonism by any attempt arffong one 
class of them or in one locality, to introduce as 
genuine a book which had not previously enjoyed 
this reputation; the evidence rises in amount and 
force, and approaches as near to demonstration as 
the nature of the subject admits. It is upon this 
basis of general acceptance that the claims of all 
ancient books to be received as genuine rest; and it 
is upon this basis that the genuineness of the four 
Gospels must be vindicated. The evidence for them, 
therefore, in this respect, is the same in kind as 
that for the ancient classics; that it immensely 
transcends 7 degree what can be adduced for any 
of these, I hope to be able to show. 

The shortest and most direct way of proving this 
general acceptance of a book, is to adduce passages 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 21 


from other writers by whom it has been cited under 
the title it bears. Against evidence of this sort 
there can be no appeal. ‘The medium of proof,” 
as Paley observes, “is here of all others the most 
unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of 
fraud, and is not diminished by the lapse of ages. 
Bishop Burnet,” he continues, “in the ‘ History of 
his own Times,’ inserts various extracts from ‘Clar- 
endon’s History. One such insertion is a proof 
that ‘Clarendon’s History’ was extant at the time 
Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been read by 
Bishop Burnet as a work of Lord Clarendon, and 
also regarded by him as an authentic account of 
the transactions which it relates; and it will be 
proof of these points a thousand years hence, or as 
long as the books exist.”* It is on this principle 
that the editors of the classics frequently prefix to 
their editions a collection of extracts from ancient 
authors under the title of “Testimonia Veterum ;” 
these are the vouchers for the antiquity and repu- 
tation, and, consequently, for the genuineness of 
the writing to which they relate. 

When we come to apply this method of proof to 
the four evangelists, we find that a firm and un- 
broken chain of testimony in their favour carries 
us up to the closing part of the second century of 
the Christian era, say A. D. 180, when it is manifest 
that they were universally recognised as authentic 
histories of Jesus Christ, and the genuine produc- 


* Evidences of Christianity, part i, chap. ix, § 1. 


29 -CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


tions of those whose names they bear. Beyond this 
point the line of testimony becomes less distinct 
partly because a smaller number of witnesses exists 
whose writings we can examine, partly because the 
evidence which those that still remain afford is less 
precise and full than that afforded by the writers 
subsequent to the period mentioned. On this ac- 
count, I shall, in the first instance, argue the ques- 
tion of the genuineness of the four Gospels on the 
assumption that we possess no historical evidence 
of a direct kind of their existence at an earlier 
date than the latter part of the second century. 
After having argued the question on this ground, 
I shall endeavour to point out the confirmation 
which the conclusion at which I hope to arrive re- 
ceives from those references to the four Gospels 
which may be gleaned from writers of an earlier 
date. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 23 


CHAPTER IL. 


ARGUMENT FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS, 
FROM THE FACT OF THEIR UNIVERSAL RECEPTION IN 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH TOWARD THE CLOSE OF THE 
SECOND CENTURY. 


Ir is here assumed that it is an ascertained historical 
fact that, at the period mentioned, these four Gos- 
pels were in universal use among the Christians in 
all parts of the world, and were universally recog- 
nised by them as the productions of the men whose 
names they bear. Into the proof of this I need not 
here enter, as it is admitted by all, whether friend 
or foe, whose opinion is of the least worth in such 
a matter. 

Now, it is on this ascertained fact that I would 
at present rest the argument in support of the gen- 
uineness of those writings. I take this as the fact 
to be accounted for—the phenomenon to be ex- 
plained; and I propose to show that the only 
hypothesis on which this can be done, is the hy- 
pothesis that these writings are what they profess 
to be—the genuine productions of the disciples of 
Jesus Christ, whose names they bear. To the legiti- 
macy and conclusiveness of such a line of argument, 
no one, I presume, will object, as it is only an ap- 


24 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


plication to this question of the Baconian method, 
on the validity of which all science rests. 

fn order duly to estimate the argumentative worth 
of this fact, it is requisite to consider, in the first 
place, that it conveys to us the testimony of a com- 
munity deeply interested im ascertaining the truth 
upon the question at issue. To yield religious sub- 
mission to any man’s teaching, or, what is the same 
thing in effect, to receive any writing as a religious 
rule, is at all times a serious matter; for one knows 
not how much evil a step of this sort may involve, 
or how seriously it may affect one’s eternal interests. 
Every thoughtful man, therefore, will naturally be 
chary in admitting any such pretensions, and will 
scrutinize with a jealous eye all claims to subject — 
him to such an authority. Especially will this feel- 
ing be strong in the mind of one who has embraced 
Christianity, for the more awful aspects under which 
that religion presents the issues of human responsi- 
bility, necessarily operate in leading its adherents to 
be very solicitous that they come under no control 
of a kind that shall influence their spiritual well- 
being, of which they are not well assured that it is 
claimed by one who has been authorized from above» 
to demand their homage. In the case of the primi- 
tive Christians, also, there was another guarantee 
for their scrupulosity in receiving any books as 
apostolic, arising from the circumstances in which 
they were placed, as liable to persecution for the 
sake of their religion. As no man likes to be per- 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 25 


secuted, if he can help it, so every man who is 
placed in danger of suffering in this way, will nat- 
urally seek to diminish, as far as may be, the sources 
of exposure to such suffering. But clearly, by in- 
creasing the number of their sacred books, the 
Christians multiplied their risk of calamity from 
this cause; for, as it was for obedience to what 
these books enjoin that they had to endure perse- 
cution, the greater the number of books to which 
they yielded submission, the greater became their 
risk of falling under the iron rod of the persecutor. 
By the mere instinct of self-preservation, therefore, 
guided by the simplest dictates of common sense, 
they would be led to examine with scrupulous care 
the pretensions of every book claiming to be one 
of their sacred and authoritative muniments. It 
follows, that whatever books they did receive as 
such, must have come to them with evidence of 
their genuineness, such as could not be resisted or 
gaimsayed. 

Secondly. Not only were the early Christians 
thus deeply interested in not being deceived in a 
question of this sort, but they were persons every 
way qualified to arrive at a sound judgment on such 
a point. Taken as a class, the Christians of the 
second century were by much the most intelligent 
and virtuous portion of the community. Their 
writers were men of higher intellectual vigour and 
much clearer discernment than the cotemporary 
authors who were heathen; for among the latter we 


26 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


shall seek in vain for any whose pretensions in these 
respects will bear to be put for a moment in compe- 
tition with those of Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, 
Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian. As a body, their 
minds were occupied with much nobler thoughts 
and projects than engrossed the thoughts of the 
people among whom they dwelt; and their horror 
of everything corrupt and insincere elevated them 
still higher in the scale of moral excellence. In the 
hands of such persons, therefore, we may confidently 
believe that any question in which they were inter- 
ested would receive both an able and an honest in- 
vestigation. Let it be kept in mind, moreover, that 
in their day there could exist no great difficulty in 
arriving at a satisfactory decision on a question such 
as that which the early Christians had, in the case 
supposed, to determine. If these writings are genu- 
ine, they must have been handed down to the Chris- 
tians who lived at the end of the second century, 
through an unbroken series of witnesses, from the 
days of the apostles; while, on the other hand, 
supposing them spurious, there must have been a 
time, long subsequent to the apostolic age, when 
they began to be known in their present form. The 
sole question, therefore, which the early Christians 
had to settle, in order to assure themselves of the 
genuineness of the Gospels, was simply this: Have 
these been always received in the Churches as the 
productions of the men whose names they bear; or, 
did they, at a period long subsequent to the death 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 27 


of these men, come into use among us? This is 
the one question they had to solve; and it is inter- 
esting to observe that they fully recognised this, 
in fact, as the only question before them in this in- 
quiry ; for the ground on which the early Christian 
writers assert the genuineness of any book in the 
New Testament, is the common notoriety that such 
a book had always been recognised as such by the 
Christians. Now, of this kind of evidence every 
man of sense can judge. It is a proof patent to the 
intelligence even of the least educated in the com- 
munity. It requires no ingenuity to apprehend it, 
however much it may require to set it aside. We 
may safely say, then, that when a body so intelligent, 
so honest, and so earnest, as were the early Chris- 
tians, set themselves to determine, as a matter in 
which they were deeply interested both for time 
and for eternity, whether or not these books are 
genuine, they could not possibly be mistaken in 
their decision, or seduced into error by any sinister 
influence. It is a matter which must have been to 
them as clearly ascertainable, and upon evidence of 
exactly the same kind, as the fact of the use of the 
metre version of the Psalms during the past two 
centuries in the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, 
or the use of Dr. Watts’s version in the Congre- 
gational Churches of England since the time of his 
death to the present day, is a fact of which the 
humblest member of any of these Churches may 
fully assure himself. And being thus ascertainable, 


28 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


we may rest assured that the claims of each book 
would be most carefully determined, and none ad- 
mitted into the Canon, or Rule of Faith, unless such 
as were certainly and indubitably genuine. In point 
of fact, we know that so certain were the early Chris- 
tians of the genuineness of the Gospels, that in their 
minds this was identified with the truth of Chris- 
tianity itself, and that they no more thought of 
doubting the one than they thought of renouncing 
the other. 

The fact, then, of the universal reception of the 
four Gospels as genuine by the Christians in the 
closing part of the second century, is one which 
comes before us, not only supported by ample histor- 
ical testimony, but free from any enfeebling circum- 
stance which might detract from its argumentative 
weight. In this fact, consequently, viewed simply 
by itself, we have strong presumptive evidence 
that these writings are what they profess to be. 
To raise this presumption to moral certainty, we 
have only to inquire whether such a universal re- 
ception of the Gospels were possible, on the sup- 
position that they are not genuine; in other words, 
whether, on such a supposition, this fact can be 
accounted for. 

For this purpose, let us, in the first instance, take 
the first three Gospels, which closely resemble each 
other, apart from the fourth. Now, if these three 
writings are not the productions of the men whose 
names they bear, but are forgeries of a later age, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 29 


they must have been produced in one of three ways, 
—namely, one of them must have been copied from 
another, or both the others; or each writer must 
have made use of documents peculiar to himself, but 
having much in common with those used by the 
other two; or they may all have derived their 
accounts from tradition,—the traditions preserved 
by one being partly the same with those preserved 
by the others, partly differing from them. Let us 
consider each of them in order. 

In the first case, we must regard one of these 
Gospels as the original, and view the others as copies 
from it,—or two of them as original, and the remain- 
ing one as a copy from them; the copy in either case 
being, of course, intended as an amended and im- 
proved edition of the original. But, on this sup- 
position, it is manifestly impossible to account for 
the wniversal reception of all the three as equally 
genuine; for those Churches which received the 
original would necessarily reject the copies as inter- 
polated, while those which received the copies would 
reject the original as imperfect; so that, had these 
writings been got up in the way specified under the 
first hypothesis, such a fact as their reception equally 
by all the Churches would never have occurred. 
Let us pass, then, to the second hypothesis, namely, 
that each compiler had a set of documents peculiar 
to himself from which he made up his Gospel. In 
this case it must be supposed that the extant Gospels 
are compilations from certain histories of Jesus Christ 


30 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


which were in circulation among the Christians in 
the second century, of which the unknown authors 
of these Gospels possessed separate sets, from which 
they made up each his compilation. Now, accord- 
ing to the hypothesis, these compilations completely 
and everywhere supplanted the original documents, 
so that no trace of them was ever afterward found. 
But is such a thing possible? How could compila- 
tions by unknown authors avail to supplant every- 
where documents, some of which, we may believe, 
were contemporary with the existence ofthe Churches 
in which they circulated, and all of which would be 
objects of respect and affection to the Christians, as 
the records from which they and their fathers had 
learned the history of their Saviour? There are 
only ¢wo cases in which a new record of our Lord’s 
life could have supplanted those already in circula- 
tion: the one is, when it came with greater authority 
than they possessed,—the other is, when it was so 
perfect as to include all that they contained in one 
continuous narration. But, in the instance before 
us neither of these cases occurs; for an anonymous 
compilation, bearing what all the Christians must 
have known to be a spurious title, could never be 
regarded as of greater authority than the documents 
from which it was made up; and none of these writ- 
ings could be accepted as perfect, because none of 
them is complete,—each of them containing some- 
thing that is not found in the others. It must be 
manifest, then, to every man’s capacity, that had 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 31 


these Gospels been got in the way specified by 
the second hypothesis, their universal reception 
never could have occurred. To believe this possible, 
we must believe that the whole body of Christians 
throughout the world, with one consent, and under 
a simultaneous impulse, though without any assign- 
able reason, adopted a set of narratives, drawn up 
by they knew not whom, of our Lord’s life: banished 
into oblivion all other narratives, though long pos- 
sessed and much venerated by them, and though 
substantially as good as those they accepted in their 
place; and, from that moment forward, held these 
documents, thus accepted, in such awful reverence 
that never afterward would they suffer them to be 
altered, superseded or rivalled! Those who reject 
the belief in the genuineness of these books for the 
belief of anything so monstrous and unnatural as 
this, may be most justly said to “strain at a gnat 
and swallow a camel.” There only remains the 
third hypothesis, namely, that the first three Gospels 
were compiled by unknown persons from narratives 
handed down by oral tradition in the Churches from 
the days of the apostles. Here it may be conceded 
that, had there been no written record of our Lord’s 
life, but only traditions handed down from one gen- 
eration to another, it is not an improbable thing, that 
during the course of the second century three per- 
sons, or even more, might have undertaken to col- 
lect these traditions into one continuous narrative. 
But against the supposition that this was the way in 


32 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


which the extant Gospels were composed, there lies 
the insuperable difficulty of their universal reception 
as of egual authority, and as alike genuine, by the 
Christians at the close of that century; for as the 
narrative is not exactly the same in all, as in some 
cases the discrepancy between them is considerable, 
we cannot imagine that all the Churches would agree 
to hold them in equal respect when offered simply 
as collections of current traditions. But the dif- 
JSerences of these narratives do not furnish the most 
serious objection to this hypothesis; their general 
argument and frequent identity afford a fact much 
more unaccountable on it. It is characteristic of 
oral traditions, that, though they may preserve a gen- 
eral similarity of outline, they continually separate 
further and further from each other, as time elapses, 
in matters of detail. Hence, any fact left to be 
perpetuated only by oral tradition, comes in a very 
few years to be presented under extremely different 
aspects in different places. The fancy of one man, 
the forgetfulness of another, the craft, it may be, 
of a third, the ignorance or dulness of a fourth, and 
many such causes, conspire to pollute the separate 
streams of tradition, and to make the deposits which, 
at any given point in their progress, they leave, 
strangely to differ from each other. As an invar® 
able result, it is found, that whatever be the subject 
of the tradition, whether civil or religious, the pre- 
servation of a prevailing agreement in the form, and 
circumstances, and details with which the same fact 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 33 


is presented in different places, is a thing that seems 
impossible. And if this be true of a single fact, 
how much stronger does the inference become in 
the case of a lengthened narrative full of details of 
the most minute and varied character? The chances 
that such a narrative should be conveyed along 
three different lines of oral tradition in a state of 
substantial agreement are extremely small; that it 
should be conveyed not only in a state of substan- 
tial agreement, but with an agreement so close as 
that subsisting among the three synoptical Gospels, 
is so impossible that no calculation could state the 
chances against it. Tradition cannot hand down a 
single anecdote without presenting it in manifold 
varieties of form; it is mathematically impossible 
that it should transmit a long series of narratives 
by three different channels, so as to preserve all 
but entire agreement among them, not only in the 
general, but in respect of persons, places, events, 
thoughts and words. 

We thus see that on none of these hypotheses, as 
to the composition of the first three Gospels, can 
. their universal reception by the Christians be satis- 
factorily accounted for; and as these hypotheses 
exhaust the possibilities of the case, we are reduced 
to the alternative either of admitting that they are 
not forgeries, or of denying the fact of their universal 
reception. But to deny the latter, would be in the 
highest degree unphilosophical; for there would be 
an end of all science, if we might first admit a fact, 


34 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


and then, when we found that we could not account 
for it on some predetermined hypothesis, were at 
liberty to ignore or deny it. The first principle of 
the inductive method is, that the facts must deter- 
mine the theory, not the theory prejudge the facts. 
The only course, therefore, open for the truly scien- 
tific inquirer in the case before us, is, to renounce 
the hypothesis which he finds to be incompatible 
with the facts, and accept these three Gospels as 
genuine. | 

Let us now take the whole of the four Gospels. 
Assuming them to be genuine, it is easy to account 
for their universal reception in the Church; but 
if we suppose them spurious, the question fairly 
arises: How came they to pass for genuine, and to 
be accepted so generally, at so early a period, as the 
productions of the men whose names they bear? 
On this hypothesis, it must be supposed that some 
person or persons living subsequently to the age 
of the apostles wrote these books, and sent them 
forth under forged names. But before this can be 
believed, certain questions must be satisfactorily 
answered. 1. Inthe absence of the only evidence on 
the ground of which these books could be received 
as genuine, namely, the belief and testimony of the 
preceding age, how came it to pass that the deceit 
was successfully imposed upon the whole Christian 
world? or how can it be accounted for that the 
whole of the Christians then alive were persuaded 
to receive as genuine, books for which they must 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 35 


have known that the only competent evidence of gen- 
uineness was wanting? 2. If the Christians did not 
in good faith receive these books as genuine, but only 
agreed to pretend to do so, how is it to be explained 
that so gross an act of imposition upon the world 
should have been accomplished by a simultaneous 
collusion of many thousands of persons scattered over 
various parts of the earth, having no means of con- 
cocting such an extensive scheme of fraud, and being, 
besides, in all other respects, noted for their honesty, 
integrity, and candour. 8. If a cheat was intended 
in affixing to these books the names they bear, is it 
not unaccountable that the names selected should, 
with one exception, be those of persons by no means 
distinguished otherwise among the disciples of 
Christ? If the authority of a famous name was 
required to sustain the imposture, why pass by 
those of Peter, of Paul, or of J ames, to fix upon 
such as those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, men 
round whom no glory gathers, except as we admit 
their claims to the authorship of these books? 
4. On the hypothesis that these four Gospels are 
spurious, how shall we account for their general 
reception, notwithstanding the discrepancies which 
they reciprocally present ? Supposing their genuine- 
ness established on competent testimony, and by 
the continuous tradition of the preceding age, we 
can easily see that these discrepancies would form 
no barrier to their being accepted as the actual works 
of the men by whom they were thus known to be 


36 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


written, because in this case the external evidence 
would be such as to compel conviction in spite of 
any difficulties which might arise from the contents 
of the books themselves. But if they are supposed 
to have been forged, then, as they would come 
utterly unsupported by any external evidence, and 
as their pretensions would, in that case, rest upon 
internal grounds alone, it is utterly incredible that, 
in the face of the discrepancies among them, they 
should have been all viewed as of equal authority. 
5. These Gospels are the productions of Jewish 
writers, (unless Luke be an exception,) and they are 
composed in a style which must have been new to 
the native Greeks, and which we know from direct 
testimony was very despicable in their eyes ;* yet it 
is through the Gentile branch of the Church that 
they have come down to us, as books received among 
Greeks as well as Jews as of sacred authority. How 
is this to be accounted for on the supposition that 
they are not genuine? Is it credible that writings 
composed in a barbarous dialect, by persons utterly 
unknown, should have found such favour with the 
fastidious Greeks, as all to be welcomed by them 
without the least evidence, placed by them in a 
position of authority, and handed down by them as 
the only true and genuine narratives of the history 


= « Accustomed,” says Lactantius, speaking of educated men of 
his day, “to sweet and polished orations or poems, they spurn as 
sordid the simple and common language of the divine literature.” 
—Instit., lib. vi, ¢. 21. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 37 


of Him by whom the religion they had embraced 
had been founded ? 

It must be plain, I think, to every candid mind, 
that these questions place difficulties in the way of 
believing these writings to be spurious, which it is 
not going too far to call insuperable. In fact, if 
these writings are not genuine, we must believe that 
all the Christians in the world, at the end of the 
second century, went suddenly mad, so as to suffer 
themselves to be persuaded that they had always, 
for a century at least, possessed books which, had 
one sane man been left among them, he would have 
been able to demonstrate had only come into ex- 
istence a few years before. The man who can believe 
this must possess a mind so strangely constituted, that 
his judgment upon any point of evidence, resting 
upon the ordinary laws of human thought and ac- 
tion, can hardly be entitled toa moment’s considera- 
tion.” 


** See on the subject of this chapter, Norton’s valuable treatise 
on the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2 vols., 8vo. London, 1847. 


38 CHRIST AND OCHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER III. 


DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE FOUR 
GOSPELS FROM WRITINGS ANTECEDENT TO THE LAST 
QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 


Tue reasoning of the preceding section has been 
directed to the end of showing, that, even on the 
assumption that no reference whatever existed, in 
any writer previous to the close of the second cen- 
tury, to any of the four Gospels as extant in his day, 
it would yet be impossible to account for their 
universal reception by the Christians as the only 
authentic records of our Lord’s life on earth, on 
any other supposition than that they are the genuine 
productions of the men whose names they bear. 
In assuming this ground, however, the opponents 
of the Gospels demand of us a concession which only, 
ex gratia, and for the sake of argument, can we con- 
sent to yield. I have shown that even when the 
concession is made to them, they can gain nothing 
by it. I would now endeavour to vindicate the 
historical evidence of the existence of the Gospels 
from the apostolic age to the latter part of the 
second century, from the attempts which have been 
recently made, especially by Eichhorn and Strauss, 
to invalidate it. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 39 


The earliest witness for any of the Gospels is the 
author of the Acts of the Apostles. From the pro- 
logue to this book, compared with that to the Gos- 
pel by Luke, there can be no reasonable doubt that 
the same person is the author of both these compo- 
sitions, and this is confirmed by a comparison of the 
language and style of both. Now, the steady testi- 
mony of Christian antiquity assigns the authorship 
of the Acts of the Apostles to St. Luke; and with 
this the internal evidence agrees; especially the 
circumstance that Luke was with Paul at the very 
times at which the author of the Acts was with 
him. From this it follows with great conclusive- 
ness, that Luke, the companion of Paul, was the 
author of the third Gospel; and as this was written 
before the Acts, and as the Acts must have been 
written before the termination of St. Paul’s impris- 
onment at Rome, 2. e., before the year 63 or 64, the 
antiquity of this Gospel seems to rest upon a very 
solid basis of evidence. 

With this witness Strauss deals in a singularly 
timid and unsatisfactory manner. He does not 
venture to deny the authenticity of the Acts, but 
he insinuates that a book which states so many 
“marvellous” things concerning Paul, and so much 
that is “at variance with Paul’s genuine epistles,” 
(though what the points of variance are we are not 
informed, and to the countrymen of Paley such in- 
formation would be both novel and curious,) is one 
which he finds it extremely difficult to reconcile 


40 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


with the notion that it was “written by a compan- 
ion of that apostle.” He then hints that the author 
of this Gospel and the Acts nowhere informs his 
readers that he was Paul’s companion, which Dr. 
Strauss thinks a most unaccountable omission, sup- 
posing him to have been so. After all, however, 
he admits that “it is indeed possible that this com- 
panion of Paul may have composed his two works 
at a time, and under circumstances when he was no 
longer protected by apostolic influence against the 
tide of tradition,”—an admission for which we are 
duly grateful, as it involves, at all events, the 
further admission that the third Gospel must have 
been produced within the first century, but one for 
which the author has no more authority than we 
have for going the full length of conceding to Luke 
the authorship of both books; nay, far less, as has 
been well shown among others by Professor Tho- 
luck.* In fine, after remarking that “the breaking 
off of the Acts at the point of Paul’s imprisonment 
might have been the result of many causes,” the 
whole is summed up by the magisterial dictum— 
“At all events, such testimony, standing alone, is 
wholly insufficient to decide the historical worth of 
the Gospel.” The exact meaning of this I do not 
profess to have penetrated, but the purport of it 
one sees easily enough; it is obviously to put down 
by contempt what cannot be answered by argu- 


* In his Glaubwirdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte. See 
Beard’s Voices of the Church. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 41 


ment. I have above stated the evidence deducible 
from the Acts in favour of the Gospel; I have ad- 
duced Dr. Strauss’s objections; and I now leave it 
with my readers to determine how far these objec- 
tions apply and have force. JI imagine most will 
agree in thinking that if the evidence of testimony 
is to be set aside on mere subjective grounds, such 
as those which Dr. Strauss adduces, there must be 
an end of all such evidence in any case. 

The next class of witnesses for the Gospels is com- 
posed of the apostolic fathers. In the invaluable 
collections of Lardner are adduced numerous in- 
stances in which these writers have made very ob- 
vious allusions to passages in the four Gospels, and 
one or two cases in which they have apparently 
directly quoted them. These instances have been 
subjected by Eichhorn and others to a very rigid 
scrutiny, for the purpose of destroying the evidence 
they furnish that the extant Gospels were known to 
the apostolic fathers; but, as appears to me, with- 
out success. The objections which these learned 
men urge against the passages adduced, resolve 
themselves mainly into two. In the first place, it 
is said that in those passages which cite the very 
words, or nearly the very words of the Gospels, 
there is no intimation that the author is making a 
quotation; from which it is inferred that the pas- 
sage is cited from oral and not from written tra- 
dition. But the same objection would apply to the 
numerous citations which these apostolic fathers. 


49 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


make from the epistles of the New Testament; 
these are usually without any signs of quotation— 
so that if this circumstance is of value as against 
the Gospels, it is of no less value as against the 
epistles. If in the one case it may justly be in- 
ferred, from the absence of the signs of quotation, 
that the passage apparently cited had reached the 
writer by oral tradition, the same inference would 
be equally just in the other case; and thus it would 
follow, that the very expressions of a private letter 
might get abroad, and be repeated as sayings of the 
author of that letter, before the letter itself was 
written, which is absurd. This objection, therefore, 
proves too much, and, consequently, cannot be held 
as proving anything. The second objection urged 
against the testimonies of the apostolic fathers, in 
behalf of the Gospels, is, that by far the greater 
part of them are so general in the allusions they 
are supposed to make to passages occurring in the 
Gospels, that no weight can be attached to them. 
Now this appears to me a singularly unfortunate 
objection. Instead of invalidating the evidence 
contained in these allusions, in favour of the an- 
tiquity of the Gospels, this peculiarity in these allu- 
sions furnishes the strongest argument in favour of 
that antiquity. For when does an author feel him- 
self at liberty to deal in general allusions to other 
writings, and, instead of formally citing them, to in- 
vigorate his own style, or point his own sentences, 
by a few words borrowed from them, or a passing 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 43 


hint at something they contain? Is it not when he 
may safely take for granted the familiarity of his 
readers with the authors he thus passingly lauds? 
and does not this feature in the writings of any 
author invariably prompt the inference, that he has, 
in preparing his work, assumed the fact of such 
familiarity? and would not a critic be held to have 
offered a just stricture upon a work which was in- 
terlarded with fragments of passages borrowed from, 
and continual passing allusions made to, writings 
with which his readers could not be acquainted, if 
he condemned it as pedantic and unintelligible? 
Take, for instance, a volume of Hazlitt’s eesthetical 
works, besprinkled, as these are, all over with 
phrases from Shakspeare, and allusions to his plays; 
put this into the hands of an intelligent foreigner 
who understands our language, direct his attention 
to the fact that these phrases are to be found in 
Shakspeare, and that these allusions are to scenes 
in his dramas, though Hazlitt hardly ever gives a 
reference or makes a formal citation to guide the 
reader to this fact; would not the just and natural 
inference of the stranger be, not only that Hazlitt 
was himself well versed in Shakspeare, but that be- 
fore such a style of writing could be at all tolerated 
by the public, they, too, must have been well ac- 
quainted with the writings of the dramatist? My 
argument, therefore, in reply to Eichhorn and his 
party is, that the mere fact that these early writers 
have so frequently clothed their own sentiments in 


44. CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


words which we find extant in the Gospels, and 
have so often enforced their positions by making 
allusions to events recorded there, ought to be held, 
in all fairness, as showing not only that the Gospels 
were then extant, but that they were familiarly 
known as belonging to the classics of the Christian 
community. What confirms this conclusion is, that 
exactly in the same way of general allusion and 
partial citation, do these apostolic fathers frequently 
make use of the writings of the Old Testament, and 
the epistolary writings of the New.* 

In the age next to that of the apostles, and at the 
commencement of the second century, lived Papias, 
Bishop of Hierapolis. Irenzeust informs us that he 


* Strauss insinuates that, as doubts exist of the genuineness of 
the writings of the apostolic fathers, no weight can be attached to 
any evidence which their writings may furnish of the existence 
of the Gospels in their day. To this it may suffice to reply, that 
the parts of these writings from which most of the testimonies in 
favour of the evangelical narratives are drawn, have never been 
called in question on any grounds; and besides, that, with the 
exception of the larger rescension of the epistles of Ignatius, the 
non-integrity of these writings has never yet been shown on any 
sound critical grounds. See Lardner’s Works, ii, 11-105. Mac- 
night’s Gospel History, b. iii, c. 1, sec. 2. 

+ Adv. Haer., 1. v, c 33; comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., 1. iii, ¢. 39. 
Cave (Hist. Lit., i, 29) places him in the year 110; Basnage in 
115, and Pagi in 116, (see Lardner, Works, ii, 106.) Strauss gives 
a very unfair account of Papias. ‘He is said to have been an 
auditor of John, (probably the presbyter,) and to have suffered 
martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius (161-180).” This account 
omits what is best known, and inserts what is altogether doubt- 
ful concerning him; the object being to lower as much as possible 
the value of his testimony. It is not “probably John the presby- 
ter,” of whom Papias was a hearer; it is all but certain that the 


ee 


a ee ee ee ee ee ee 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 45 


was “a hearer of John, and a companion of Poly- 
carp,” who, it is well known, was a disciple of the 
apostle of that name. He styles him also “an an- 
cient man,” (deyaio¢g avijc,) which, considering that 
Irenzeus wrote toward the end of the second cen- 
tury, must be regarded as placing Papias very near 
the apostolic age. [rom this important witness we 
learn, that in his day the Gospel according to Mat- 
thew was in circulation among the Christians, and 
that the Gospel according to Mark was also well 
known.* 

Much effort has been used by the enemies of the 
Gospels to discredit the testimony of this ancient 
- bishop. Strauss, while admitting that he does attest 
that an apostle wrote a Gospel history, nevertheless 
affirms that he does not certify us that “it was iden- 
tical with that which came afterward to be circu- 
lated in the Church under his name.” ‘This relates 
John spoken of here was the apostle. The words of Irenzeus are, 
“who was a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” Now 
had John the presbyter been referred to, this qualifying title 
would have been added; for the John of Christian antiquity was 
not the presbyter, but the apostle; and, besides, the mention of 
Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle, and not of the pres- 
byter, seems still further to fix this meaning to the passage. Add, 
also, that the testimony of Irenzeus, who was the disciple of Poly- 
carp, and may be supposed to have known something about the 
matter, ought to settle a point of this sort. Again, on what au- 
thority is it said, that Papias suffered martyrdom under Marcus 
Aurelius, in the end of the second century? The oldest authority 
for this, as far as we know, is that of the ‘“Chronicon Alexandri- 
num,” a work of the seventh or eighth century, and therefore worth 


next to nothing as an authority on such a point. 
* Lardner, Works, ii, 106-111. 


46 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


to what Papias says of the Gospel by Matthew. 
Now, to me it appears marvellous how any man, 
with the statement of Papias before him, could 
bring himself to utter what Strauss has here asserted. 
The words of this witness are: ‘“ Matthew wrote in 
the Hebrew dialect, ra Adyra”—an expression which 
Strauss himself admits to mean “a writing compre- 
hending the acts and fate of Jesus.” Here, then, 
we have it certified to us by a very competent wit- 
ness, that the apostle Matthew had written a Gospel 
before the early part of the second century. This 
much, therefore, is ascertained, that Matthew did 
write a history of our Lord. It is also certain that 
Eusebius, by whom this testimony has been pre- - 
served, understood Papias as speaking of the extant 
Gospel; and Strauss admits that the fathers of the 
Church “did apply this testimony decidedly to our 
first Gospel.” What is there, then, to forbid our 
receiving this testimony of the ancient bishop, in 
proof of the apostolic origin of our first Gospel? 
The answer of Strauss is, that “the manuscript 
of which he [Papias] speaks cannot be absolutely 
identical with our Gospel; for, according to the 
statement given by Papias, Matthew wrote in the 
Hebrew language.” But though Papias says that 
Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language, he does 
not say that he did not also write in the Greek; so 
that we are perfectly at liberty to suppose, as far as 
his testimony goes, that the Hebrew Gospel was a 
translation from the original Greek, or that Mat- 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. AT 


thew, having first written in Hebrew, afterward 
wrote in Greek, or to make any other supposition 
of the same sort which appears to us most eligible. 
The case, as a question of evidence, stands thus: 
Papias depones to the fact that there was in his day 
extant a Gospel history, known to be from the pen 
of St. Matthew, and written in the Hebrew dialect ; 
and this fact is repeatedly asserted by others of the 
fathers. Now, that Hebrew Gospel has perished, 
but in its place we have a Greek Gospel, purport- 
ing to be from the same pen, and received as such 
by the unanimous consent of Christian antiquity. 
It follows, either that St. Matthew wrote both a 
Hebrew and a Greek Gospel, (or, what comes to the 
same thing for our present purpose, authorized a 
translation from the one into the other of these 
tongues,) or that Christian antiquity erred in re- 
ceiving the Greek Gospel as St. Matthew’s. But 
if we adopt this latter supposition, we must adopt 
it clogged with this serious difficulty, viz., that the 
Christian Church, after having been in possession 
of an authentic record of our Lord’s life and fate, 
from the pen of an accredited apostle, consented to 
cast that aside, and to receive in its place a forgery, 
perpetrated in the name of the apostle, and not 
identical in its statements with that which they had 
previously possessed. Is this, we ask, credible? Is 
it not much more probable that Matthew wrote 
originally in Greek, and that for some temporary 
purpose he prepared, or caused to be prepared, a 


48 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


translation into the Aramaic dialect, which, being 
limited in its circulation, and not designed for per- 
manency, was allowed to perish; the Church feel- 
ing, that being possessed of the original in a lan- 
guage generally known, it was the less needful to 
be careful about preserving the translation into a 
language which was fast dying out? 

The testimony of Papias concerning Mark’s Gos- 
pel is adduced as what he had learned from “John 
the Presbyter,” and is as follows: “ Mark being the 
interpreter (épunvevtijc) of Peter, wrote exactly what- 
ever he remembered of the things done and spoken 
by Christ, though not in order. For neither had he 
himself heard the Lord, nor followed him. But, as 
I have said [he wrote] after Peter, who gave instruc- 
tions as need required, but not in the shape of a 
regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark 
erred in nothing, while thus writing some things as 
he remembered them. For this one thing he took 
care to provide for, not to omit anything of what 
he had heard, nor to falsify aught therein.”* Here 
is a testimony than which nothing can be more dis- 
tinct and precise. It asserts that the Gospel by Mark 
was written from the instructions (d:dackadiac) of 
the apostle Peter—that Mark was, in this respect 
the medium of communication (épuqvevrijc) between 
Peter and the public, and that Mark so came after 
Peter (Gorepov Ilétew) that he erred in nothing. Be 
it remembered also, that this testimony comes to us 

* Kuseb. H. E., 1. iii, c. 39. 


es ee ee 


a oe ee ee 


ee ee ee 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 49 


from the very age of Peter and Mark. It is that 
of a contemporary and companion of apostles, and 
is conveyed to us by one of his own pupils, whose 
character as a pious but not very strong-minded 
man* affords the best guarantee for the truth of his 
report in a matter of this sort, inasmuch as the most 
faithful of all relators of simple matters of fact are 
conscientious, unimaginative, single-minded men. 
What, then, has Dr. Strauss to say against this wit- 
ness? His first remark is: “ Ecclesiastical writers 
have assumed that this passage from Papias refers 
to our second Gospel, though it does not say any- 
thing of the kind.” This is curiously phrased. 
“Keclesiastical writers!” This may mean writers 
of the second or writers of the nineteenth century, 
according as the mind of the reader may suggest; 
and in this ambiguity lies the only chance of saving 
the dictum from absolute ridicule. For let us state 
the case fairly, by substituting for “ecclesiastical 
writers” “the Christian fathers,” and the absurdity 
of the author’s remark will at once appear. The 
Christian fathers, knowing of but one Gospel by St. 
Mark, and finding Papias reporting a statement of 
John the presbyter as to Mark’s writing a Gospel 
under the superintendence of St. Peter, cgncluded 
that, as Mark did not write two Gospels, this. testi- 
mony appertained to the book which they and the 
universal Church received as the Gospel according 
to Mark. What is there here of mere assumption ? 


* Soddpa yap Tor opixpo¢ Gv tov voiv.—Euseb. l. ¢. 


4 


50 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Suppose a writer of the reign of George I. of Eng- 
land had recorded that he had heard his master, 
who had the best means of knowing, say that Mil- 
ton wrote “Paradise Lost” under particular circum- 
stances, who would fancy there was anything wrong 
in “assuming” that the “Paradise Lost,” of which 
this was said, is identical with the ‘Paradise Lost” 
which we now possess? Or suppose a writer in the 
time of Augustus had recorded some facts concern- 
ing the composition of “Livy’s History,” and that 
we found several subsequent writers quoting this 
testimony, and unhesitatingly assuming that it was 
“TLivy’s History” of which the writer spoke, who 
would not stand amazed were such a remark as that 
of Dr. Strauss obtruded in the shape of a reason 
why we, in the present day, should, after all, doubt 
whether it was not some other book, passing under 
the same name, to which the ancient writer had 
reference? Such extravagance of scepticism may 
be safely left to work its own overthrow. 

But Dr. Strauss goes on to say, that the testi- 
mony of Papias is, “besides, inapplicable to it” 
(the second Gospel.) This remark is more to the 
point; for if it could be shown that what Papias 
says is totally inapplicable to our second Gospel, we 
should be constrained to admit that his testimony is 
invalid. But is it so? Let us hear Dr. Strauss: 
“Our second Gospel cannot have originated from 
recollections of Peter’s instructions, 2. ¢., from a 
source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a com- 


¥ 
; 
| 
j 
: 
| 
F 


ee eee ee ee eee ee 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. bt 


pilation, whether from memory or otherwise, from 
the first and third Gospels.” It is well when one 
does make an assertion to make it boldly and 
roundly, for it has thereby the better chance of 
commanding assent, from those who are prone to 
give a writer credit for being able to prove what he 
fearlessly asserts. But Dr. Strauss hardly keeps 
within the bounds of prudence here; for when he 
declares that Mark’s Gospel is “evidently a com- 
pilation” from those of Matthew and Luke, he for- 
gets that what Augustine was the first to suggest, 
or rather timidly to hint at with a “wdetur ;” what 
men like Le Clerc, Michaelis, Koppe, Eichhorn, 
Lardner, and Townson, with a host of others, have 
rejected as untenable; and what it cost Griesbach 
an elaborate “Commentatio” to render even plausi- 
bly apparent, though the materials for arriving at a 
conclusion upon it had been for centuries in the 
hands of thousands, cannot be so very “evident,” 
after all. He might have remembered, also, that 
such men as Hug and Olshausen, while inclining to 
the opinion that Mark probably made use, at least, 
of Matthew’s Gospel, have endeavoured to show 
how this is, nevertheless, compatible with what Pa- 
pias records concerning the part sustained by St. 
Peter in the composition of the second Gospel. 
Besides this, the only other reason assigned by 
him for thinking that it is not to the second Gospel 
that Papias refers, is, that “the remark of Papias 
that Mark wrote without order (od rééex) will not 


52 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


apply to our Gospel.” But the question arises, 
What did Papias mean by thisremark? Dr. Strauss 
magistratically, as is his wont, asserts, that it is “a 
total renunciation of chronological connexion which 
Papias can alone have meant to attribute to him ;” 
and this, he adds, “is not to be found in the second 
Gospel.” Now, it is true that Mark does not totally 
renounce chronological order in his narrative, and 
yet it is quite possible that he may be said to have 
written od tée1; for most persons will admit that 
between the extremes of exact chronological order, 
and no chronological order at all, there are many 
degrees to which the phrase in question might be 
applied. It is possible, then, even supposing that 
tééec here has respect to chronological order, that 
all that is intended by the expression is, that Mark 
wrote an account of the sayings and doings of Christ 
without binding himself to invariably narrate these 
in the very order in which they occurred. But how 
comes Dr. Strauss to be so absolutely certain that 
taéec here has reference to chronology? Is there no 
order but chronological order ?—or can yeddev taker 
mean nothing but “to observe chronological order 
in writing?” A scholar, such as Dr. Strauss pro- 
fesses to be, needs not to be told that in the classics 
Téét¢ has reference to order in space much more fre- 
quently than to order in t#me,; that its most common 
usage was to designate a rank of soldiers; and that, 
consequently, the passage before us may be ren- 
dered, “he wrote the sayings and doings of Christ, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 53 


not in rank,” ¢. ¢., not in a continuous narrative, but 
anecdotically, as he learned them from Peter; a 
species of writing which is perfectly consistent with 
as much of chronological order as Mark adopts, but 
which, nevertheless, is not tééev, a full-rank and un- 
broken narrative. Or, even supposing Dr. Strauss 
is right in the sense he puts on the words of Papias, 
what do they prove? That Papias had not the 
second Gospel in view when he wrote them? As- 
suredly not; they only prove that he deemed Mark’s 
arrangement less accurate, in point of chronology, 
than that of some other narrative with which he 
had compared it. Now, in this Papias may have 
committed a mistake; he may have judged Mark 
by a wrong standard; but how this error of judg- 
ment should in the least invalidate his testimony to 
the matter of fact, we cannot conceive. A witness 
is asked by the judge: “Do you know that A. B. 
wrote this book?” He answers, “‘ Yes, A. B. wrote 
it; he got the materials of it from C. D., and put 
them together, though not in such good order as he 
might.” “There,” replies the judge, “you are mis- 
taken, the arrangement is very good; but that is 
not the point which you are called to attest; all we 
want to know from you is, whether A. B. wrote the 
book or not?” The witness repeats that he did; he 
is a witness of unimpeachable character; he had 
ample means of knowing the fact which he attests, 
and no subsequent witness contradicts his statement, 
but all confirm it. In such a case what would be 


54 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


thought of the sincerity, to say nothing of the san- 
ity, of an advocate who should get up and try to 
persuade the jury that it could not be of the work 
libelled that the witness was speaking, because the 
opinion he had expressed concerning its composition 
differed very much from that of the learned judge. 
Such pleading, we suspect, would, in Britain at 
least, go a good way to damage the cause on behalf 
of which it was attempted. And yet it is exactly 
on such a plea that Dr. Strauss, even when we 
grant him his own premises, would set aside the 
clear, distinct, highly probable, and amply con- 
firmed testimony of John the presbyter, conveyed 
through Papias, respecting the apostolic authorship 
of Mark’s Gospel. 

But the testimony of pani besides being valid, 
directly as evidence of the existence in his day of 
the Gospels he mentions, affords evidence also of an 
indirect kind of the genuineness of the fourth Gos- 
pel. His (to use the words of Mr. Norton*) “was 
a period but just after the death of St. John, when 
thousands were living who’had seen that last sur- 
vivor of the apostles; many, perhaps, who had made 
a pilgrimage to Ephesus to behold his countenance, 
and listen to his voice, and hundreds who belonged 
to the Church over which he had presided in per- 
son. It is incredible, therefore, that before the time 
of Papias, a spurious Gospel should have been re- 
ceived as his work; and after the time of Papias, 

“ Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i, pp. 153, 154. 


eee ee. ee 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 55 


when the authority of the first three Gospels was 
established, the attempt to introduce a Gospel falSely 
ascribed to St. John must have been, if possible, 
still more impracticable.” 

From Papias we pass to Justin Martyr, who 
flourished about the year 140. A philosopher and 
a man of learning before he became a Christian, 
Justin was not likely to accept any writings as sa- 
cred and authoritative, without being well satisfied 
of their genuineness; and as most of his writings 
are of a controversial or apologetic kind, he was not 
likely to quote any authority, the pretensions of 
which were not susceptible of the most convincing 
proof. Now, it is true that he nowhere expressly 
names any of our extant Gospels by reference to its 
author; but he makes frequent mention of Memoirs 
of Jesus Christ, which were in circulation among 
the Christians of his day, and from them he largely 
quotes, as of undoubted authority. The question, 
therefore, which we have to consider is, Can these 
Memoirs referred to and cited by Justin be identi- 
fied with any of the four Gospels as we now have 
them? The following considerations appear to me 
to place the affirmative answer to this question be- 
yond any reasonable doubt. 

1. Justin says that these Memoirs were composed 
by “apostles of Christ, and those that followed with 
them,”*—that they contained accounts of “ every- 


** Dial. cum Tryph., p. 331. D. In this passage Justin uses lan- 
guage which would apply very well as descriptive of the four Gos- 


56 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


thing concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ”—that 
they were received and believed by the Christians— 
and that they were read in the assemblies of the 
Christians every Sunday along with the writings of 
the prophets.* Unless, then, these were identical 
with our present Gospels, we must believe that some 
book or books were, about the middle of the second 
century, in common circulation among the Christians, 
held in the highest authority, believed by them to be 
of apostolic authorship, read by them in their public 
assemblies as on a par with the prophetical writings, 
and held to contain all that was known or believed 
of the events of our Saviour’s life, which yet, in the 
course of a few years, unaccountably disappeared, 
so aS never more to be mentioned or apparently 
known in the Church. We find that, in the time 
of Irenzeus, who was for a while Justin’s cotempo- 
rary, the four Gospels, as we have them, were the 
only known and recognised sources of information 
regarding the life of Christ.+ Is it possible that be- 
tween Justin’s writing and that of Irenzeus, so 
strange a thing should have happened as that one 
set of apostolic histories universally received, should 


pels. It is worthy of notice, that in the terms used to describe 
those who, besides apostles, composed these Memoirs, he uses the 
word which Luke employs to describe himself, ch. i. 3. As the 
expression is a very peculiar one (rapaxoAovOéw) when so applied, 
it is hardly possible to resist the conviction that Justin had Luke’s 
words before him when he used it. 

* Apol. i, c. 34, 66, 67. I cite from the convenient edition of 
J. W. J. Braunius. Bonn, 1830. 

f Adv. Haer., lib. 3, c. 1. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 57 


have disappeared, and another set have come into 
universal reception in their room, and that not a 
trace of this should anywhere appear? Such a 
supposition must be felt by all to be incredible, to 
be monstrous; but if it be repudiated, the alterna- 
tive must be embraced, that the Memoirs men- 
tioned by Justin are none other than our four Gos- 
pels. 2. Justin expressly says that these Memoirs 
were called “Gospels,”* and he twice refers to what 
he calls “The Gospel,” as a source of information 
respecting Christian facts, and a book whence he 
quotes.+ This much, then, is certain, that Justin 
had writings which were called Gospels, or, The 
Gospel, and that these were identical with the Me- 
moirs.t But the only books of which we have the 


“of dré6oToAo év Toig yevouévorc bn’ avTGy arouvnwovebuaoly a 
Kadeira évayyédia x.t.A. Apol., i, ¢. 66. 

7 Dial. cum Tryphone Judaeo, pp. 156 and 352, 

{ Eichhorn attempts to turn aside the point of this argument 
by saying that the fathers were wont to call each separate narra- 
tive from the life of Christ a Gospel, and in proof of this he cites 
a passage from Irenzeus (ili, 15) in which that father says, “ God 
has wrought so that many Gospels are exhibited by Luke.” Hence 
he infers that these Gospels of Justin were merely collections of 
narratives from the life of Christ. But this is excessively futile. 
Even if the quotation from Irenzeus proved that the fathers were 
wont to apply the term Gospel to separate portions of the history 
of our Lord, (which it does not, for such a passage can prove noth- 
ing as to the common usage of the fathers,) it would not serve Kich- 
horn’s purpose. Had Justin said that his Memoirs contained Gos- 
pels, the expression might have received illustration from such a 
passage as that of Ireneus. But when he says that they were 
called Gospels, he plainly means that this was another (and, it may 
be presumed, the common) designation of the books which he en- 
titles Memoirs. Even Eichhorn himself is obliged to admit that 


58 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


least intimation as having ever been called Gospels, 
or The Gospel, by the early Christians, are the ca- 
nonical Gospels; from which it follows, with no 
slight probability, that it is to them that Justin re- 
fers in the passages cited. 3. Had the Memoirs 
quoted by Justin been different from the canonical 
Gospels, it is unaccountable that, of all subsequent 
writers, many of whom refer to Justin’s works, and 
most of whom must have been familiar with them, 
not one should make the most distant reference to 
such a noticeable fact, not even when professedly 
investigating the subject of the canon! For this 
silence there is no way of accounting, but on the 
supposition that it was well known that the Me- 
moirs were only the Gospels under another name. 
4. Justin makes numerous quotations from these 
Memoirs, and these are found, to a large extent, to 
harmonize with passages in the canonical Gospels. 
This seems to place the identity of the two beyond 
any doubt. Among scholars such a fact has always 
been held of great weight in determining such 
questions ;* and with reason, for the chances that 


Justin must have intended a collection of narratives, (“ eine Samm- 
lung von Erzahlungen,”’) which is virtually conceding the whole 
question. Bishop Marsh gets rid of the argument by the compen- 
dious expedient of supposing that the words “are interpolated.” 
* A remarkable instance has been furnished of late to the lit- 
erary world, in the case of the Treatise on Heresies, recently dis- 
covered, and by its editor, M. Miller, issued as a work by Origen. 
This has now, to the satisfaction of all scholars, been identified 
with a long-lost work of Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus, 
under the above title, by the learning and ingenuity of Chevalier 


. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 59 


the same passages should be found in different 
books is so immeasurably small, that such a thing. 
may be regarded as impossible. Since Justin, then, 
repeatedly adduces as quotations from his Memoirs 
of the Apostles, passages which are to be found in 
the canonical Gospels, it would be indulging an un- 
warrantable degree of incredulity to doubt that he 
had these very Gospels before him when he made 
the quotations. It may be added that, besides pas- 
sages which he formally announces as quoted from 
the Memoirs, there are many scattered through his 
writings, the sources of which he does not indicate, 
but which are found to correspond with passages 
extant in the Gospels. The fair presumption is, 
that he quoted these also from the latter. 

Eichhorn and his follower, the late Bishop 
Marsh,* have endeavoured to destroy the force of 
Justin’s testimony by various considerations. In 
the first place, they have asked, If Justin possessed 
the four Gospels, why should he have called them 
“‘ Memoirs, composed by Apostles and those that fol- 
lowed with them,” instead of naming their authors. 
But, in adducing this objection, it seems to be for- 
Bunsen and Dr. Wordsworth. ‘The evidence they have principally 
relied on is the existence in the discovered MS. of pages quoted 
by Photius and others from the work of Hippolytus. On the 
same grounds, also, did Cardinal Mai identify the MS, he discov- 
ered in the Ambrosian library at Milan with the long-lost Treat- 
ise of Cicero de Republica. 

** Bichhorn, Einleit. Bd. i, s. 102. Marsh, Illustration of the 


Hypothesis proposed in the Dissertation on the origin of our three 
first canonical Gospels, Appendix, sect. ii. 


60 OHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


gotten that the peculiar character of Justin’s writings 

, was such as to render it not only natural, but in a 
sense necessary, that he should describe the Gospels 
ashe has done. In addressing a heathen emperor, 
or writing for the conviction of Jews, how could he 
more appropriately describe the Gospels than by 
calling them “ Memoirs of Christ composed by his 
Apostles and those who followed with them?’ 
Would it not have been absurd to cite Christian 
books by titles known only among Christians, in 
addressing those who were entirely without the pale 
of Christianity, and to whom the Christian literature 
was entirely unknown? What did Antoninus Pius 
know of the Gospel according to Matthew, or what 
could he have understood by such a title, had Justin 
referred him to it? It must be evident that Justin 
employed the phraseology he has adopted for the 
purpose of conveying, in the terms most likely to 
be understood by those for whom he wrote, a just 
idea of the kind of writings from which his facts 
are drawn. Very probably he was led to select the 
term Memoirs (drouvquovedpara) from this having 
been the title affixed by Xenophon to his narrative 
of the Discourses of Socrates—a work with which, 
doubtless, the emperor, himself not averse from the 
studies of philosophy, was familiar. 

What is here advanced receives ample confirma- 
tion from the fact, that the practice of Justin in 
this respect is that followed by all the ancient 
apologists. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 61 


“Tt was,” says Mr. Norton,* “the course pursued 
by the fathers generally in their works addressed 
to unbelievers ;—by Justin’s disciple, Tatian, who, 
though he formed a history of Christ out of the 
four Gospels, does not make mention of them, nor of 
the evangelists, in his Oration to the Gentiles ;—by 
Athenagoras, who is equally silent about them in 
his Apology, addressed, in the last quarter of the 
second century, to Marcus Aurelius ;—by Theoph- 
ilus, who conforms to the common usage of the 
writers with whom he is to be classed, except that, 
as before mentioned, he once speaks of ‘The Gos- 
pels,’ and uses once the name ‘Gospel,’ and once the 
term ‘Evangelic voice,’ in citing the Gospels, and 
once quotes the Evangelist John by name ;—by 
Tertullian, who quotes the Gospels elsewhere so 
abundantly, but from whose Apology, or from 
whose work, ‘To the Nations,’ no information (sup- 
posing those works to stand alone) could be gleaned 
concerning them ;—by Minutius Felix, whose single 
remaining book, a spirited and interesting defence 
of Christianity and attack on heathenism, in the 
form of a dialogue, affords, likewise, no evidence 
that the Gospels were in existence ;—by Cyprian, 
the well-known Bishop of Carthage about the middle 
of the third century, who, in his defence of Christi- 
anity, addressed to Demetrian, a heathen, does not 
name the Gospels nor the evangelists ;—and, to come 
down. to the beginning of the fourth century, by 


* Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i, p. 187. 


62 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Arnobius, who, in his long work, ‘ Against the 
Gentiles,’ does not cite any book of Scripture ;—and 
by Lactantius, who, in his Divine Institutes, does 
not speak of the Gospels, nor quote by name any one 
of the evangelists, except John, and mentions him 
only in a single passage.” 

It has been further objected that Justin’s citations 
differ considerably from the corresponding passages 
in the Gospels. But they differ simply from his 
haying sometimes combined two passages from dif- 
ferent Gospels into one, or from his having given the 
substance of the passage rather than the exact 
words; for both of which practices he has the ex- 
ample of the Apostle Paul in his citations from 
the Old Testament.* Such modes of dealing with 
books are common to writers of all ages, and as 
Justin exhibits the same practice in reference to the 
Old Testament and to profane writers, it is ground- 
less to urge the trifling discrepancies which exist 
between his quotations and the received text of the 
evangelists, as any evidence that it was not from 
them he quoted. 

The most weighty objection that has been adduced 
is, that Justin frequently cites from his Memoirs 
passages which are not to be found in any of the 
Evangelists. This, if it could be substantiated, 
would unquestionably present a difficulty in the 
way of our regarding these Memoirs as identical 
with our Gospels. But Iam disposed to question 

* See Appendix. Note A. 


ee ee ee 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 63 


the fact in every instance that has been adduced in 
support of this assertion. It must be observed, that 
from the passages alleged with this view, all those 
must be discounted which do not expressly refer to 
the Memoirs as the source whence they have been 
taken; for a passage which simply contains some 
statement concerning our Lord, not to be found in 
the Evangelists, but which Justin does not say was 
found in his Memoirs, is obviously irrelevant to the 
present inquiry. The question now before us is not, 
Does Justin narrate of our Lord certain things which 
the evangelists do not narrate? for, on this point, 
there can be no diversity of opinion: but, Does he 
quote his Memoirs in such a way as to lead us to 
believe that they were a different work from the 
Gospels? Now, nothing is worth a rush as bearing 
on this question, excepting passages which can be 
shown by Justin’s own words to have been taken 
by him from his Memoirs. Where this cannot be 
shown to be the case, it remains open to us to 
ascribe his additions to traditional accounts, true or 
false, which had reached his ear; and which, being 
such, have no relation whatever to the subject now 
before us. When the deductions shown to be thus 
necessary are made from the passages alleged, there 
remains but one which claims even a moment’s con- 
sideration. It is as follows: ‘ For the devil, as soon 
as he (Jesus) had come up from the' river Jordan, 
after the voice had said to him, Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee, in the Memoirs of 


64 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


the Apostles it is written that he came to him and 
tempted him, &.”* Here it is alleged that Justin 
quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles a state- 
ment which does not occur in any of the Gospels, 
viz., that the voice which was heard from heaven 
addressing our Lord after his baptism, said to him, 
“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” 
Now, even if we grant to this objection its full 
force, as it is put by those who adduce it, to what 
does it amount? Why, to this, that Justin, quoting 
from memory, substitutes for what the evangelist 
actually says, a passage from the Old Testament 
containing the very same words, with the addition 
of a few more, and so closely resembling the passage 
in the Evangelists, that if reference was not made to 
the text, the mistake might most readily occur. 
Nay, so natural does this substitution appear to have 
been, that we find it repeated again and again by 
writers in whose case it cannot be accounted for as 
the objector would account for it in the case of 
Justin. Clement of Alexandria undoubtedly had 
and used the canonical Gospels ; yet Clement gives 
the words addressed to our Lord after his baptism 
in the same way as Justin.t So does Methodius, 
so Lactantius, so Hilary, so Juvencus, all of whom 
had and used our extant Gospels. This reading has 
even found its way into one of the critical sources 
of the Greek text, the Cambridge Codex ; it appears 


* Dial., c. Tryph., p. 331, B. 
f Paedagog., 1. i., c. 6, p. 113, ed. Potter. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 65 


in several of the Latin codices, and we have the 
testimony of Augustine, that it was in several 
copies which he had examined.* The mistake, 
therefore, was one which, from some cause or other, 
the early Christian writers were apt to make ; and 
in such circumstances nothing can be more absurd 
than to attempt to force out of its occurrence in the 
writings of Justin a proof that the authority to 
which he appeals was some other narrative of our 
Lord’s life than one of the Gospels. The variation 
is evidently a mere clerical error, and no more 
proves that Justin had a Gospel different from the 
canonical Gospels, than a thousand such variations 
in the writings of theologians in the present day 
would prove that even yet the canon is not settled. 
But even this apparitional support cannot be spared 
to the advocates of this opinion; for it needs only a 
glance at the passage cited from Justin, to satisfy 
us that the only part of his statement to which the 
authority of his Apostolic Memoirs is pledged, is 
that which follows the words alleged to be ad- 
dressed to our Lord. Justin does not say that these 
words were taken by him from the Memoirs; what 
he adduces as “written” there is, that our Lord was 
tempted of the devil. It is irrelevant, therefore, in 
a question relating solely to what Justin expressly 
quotes from his Memoirs, to adduce what he does 
not advance avowedly on that authority. 

I shall conclude what I have to say of Justin 


* See Griesbach’s Note on Luke iii, 22, or Tischendorf’s, 


66 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Martyr, as a witness for the canonical Gospels, in 
the words of the learned, laborious, and cautious 
Lardner: “Upon the whole,” says he, *‘it must be 
plain to all that he (Justin) owned and had the 
highest respect for the four Gospels, written, two of 
them by apostles, and the other two by companions 
and followers of the apostles of Jesus Christ—that 
is, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”* 

Next in order of time to Justin is Ireneus. So 
full and explicit is his testimony to the existence 
and universal reception of the canonical Gospels in 
the Churches of his day, that no writer of any au- 
thority has ventured to call the fact in question. 
He states that the number of Gospels is four: he 
specifically names the writers of them as Matthew, — 
Mark, Luke, and John; and he gives repeated 
quotations from them, which enable us to identify 
his Gospels with those now in use.t No doubt, 
then, can remain that in his day (c. 178) the ex- 
tant Gospels were acknowledged by the Christians 
as the only authentic narratives of our Lord’s life 
and sayings. 

It is unnecessary to carry this investigation fur- 
ther, else the testimony of Athenagoras, (c. 178,) 
of Theophilus of Antioch, (c. 190,) and of others, 
might be adduced. Sufficient, however, has been 
advanced to show that a clear chain of testimony in 
the orthodox Churches carries us up to the apostolic 
age, certifying us that these books were from the 

* Works, vol. ii, p. 121. t See Appendix, Note B. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 67 


first accepted by the Christians as the genuine pro- 
ductions of the men whose names they bear. This 
is an important point gained, but it does not con- 
stitute the whole strength of our case. Valuable as 
is the testimony of the Christian fathers on this sub- 
ject, it is not to that alone that an appeal can be 
made on this question. It is a remarkable and im- 
portant fact, that the evidence of the heathen and 
of the heretical opponents of Christianity is no less 
explicit in support of the claims of these books. 
This evidence may be briefly summed up as fol- 
lows:* 1. These writers attest the existence of the 
Gospels, at a period so close upon the apostolic age, 
that a forgery in the name of apostles and apostolic 
-Inen was impossible. There can be no doubt that 
Celsus (c. 176) was familiar with our Gospels, and 
that it is of them he speaks, when he says to the 
Christians, after criticising the facts of the cruci- 
fixion: “All this have we taken from your own 
writings.”+ Had he taken them from any other than 
those accepted by the Christians as genuine, un- 
questionably his opponent, Origen, by whom all 
that we have of Celsus has been preserved, would 
have taken care to set the world right on that point. 
Tatian (c. 172) composed a history of Christ by put- 
ting together into a harmony the accounts of the 
four evangelists, and called his book Déetessaron, 


*“ Comp. Hug, Introd., pp. 31-64; Norton, Genuineness, &c., vol. ii 
throughout. ; 
{ Ap. Origen, cont. Cels., 1. ii, c. 74, ed. Spencer, p. 106. 


68 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


4. é., [The Gospel] by means of the four.* Theodo- 
tus the Gnostic (c. 190) quotes repeatedly from Mat- 
thew and from Luke, and even in one instance 
presses the precise expression used by Luke, as un- 
favourable to the orthodox tenet of the divine na- 
ture of Jesus Christ.t Marcion (c. 130) had a 
Gospel which was undoubtedly that of Luke inter- 
polated and expurgated to suit his own notions. 
Heracleon (c. 125) had the Gospel of Luke, on 
parts of which he wrote a commentary, a portion 
of which is still extant ;t he seems also to have that 
of Matthew, and he undoubtedly had that of John, 
on which he wrote a commentary, fragments of 
which are still preserved.§ Ptolemy, who was co- 
temporary with Heracleon, repeatedly quotes the 
Gospels, styling the writer of the fourth Gospel, the 
Apostle, and engaging to prove, by means of these 
citations, his peculiar positions, “from the words of 
the Saviour, which only are an infallible guide to 
the apprehension of the truth.”| Valentinus, the 
master of Heracleon and Ptolemy, had the four 


** Kusebius, History Eccl., 1. iv, c. 28; Theodoret, Haeret. Fab., 
13 4,-c.-20, 

+ He says that if the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation were 
true, the expression (Luke i, 85) would have been rveipua kvupiov 
yevhoerat évooi, not éxi oé. The argument is a marvellously futile 
one, but it serves to show that he had the extant text of Luke be- 
fore him in the year of grace 190. 

{ In Clement of Alexandria, Strom., 1. iv, c. 9, ed. Potter, p. 596. 

§ In Origen, Opp. ed. De la Rue, t. xiii, p. 76. See Appendix, 
Note C. 

|| Epiphanius, Heeres. xxxiii, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 69 


Gospels, according to Irenzeus and Tertullian,* and 
he, as well as his school, made large use of them in 
their writings. Now, when we consider how scanty 
are the remains of this class of writings, and how 
readily they were destroyed by the zeal of the ortho- 
dox, it cannot but be viewed as surprising that so 
large an amount of unequivocal testimony should 
be capable of being collected from them, bearing 
on the point now in hand. Within these few years, 
however, a most important addition has been made 
to this part of the evidence. One of the most emi- 
nent of the Gnostic heretics is Basilides, who “ ap- 
peared as a teacher as early as Hadrian, and proba- 
bly even under Trajan, amd closed his life under 
Antoninus Pius.”+ He was a man of learning and 
ability, and stood at the head of one of the Gnostic 
sects. Of his writings only a few fragments remain, 
of which those hitherto known afford us but little 
information as to the sources whence he drew his 
acquaintance with Christianity. We have, indeed, 
the assertion of an ancient author,t that Basilides 
wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel, by which 
term we must understand the four Gospels taken 
collectively, for so the fathers were wont to desig- 
nate them. But any statement of his own, bearing 
directly on the point before us, has hitherto been a 
desideratum. By the discovery, however, of the 


* Ady. Heeret., 1. iii, c. ii, n. 7. De Praescript. Heerat., ¢. 38. 
f Hug, Introd., p. 63. 
} Agrippa Castor, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., 1. iv, c. 7. 


70 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


long-lost Treatise of Hippolytus on the Refutation 
of Heresies, this deficiency has been supplied. We 
now not only know, from his own words, that Basi- 
lides possessed the Gospels of Luke and John, both 
of which he quotes, but “that his whole metaphysi- 
cal development is an attempt to connect a cosmo- 
gonic system with St. John’s prologue, and with the 
person of Christ.”* We thus possess a witness to 
the existence of these Gospels as early as between 
A. D. 120 and A. D. 180, that is, from ten to twenty 
years from the death of St. John. This ought to 
settle the question with all candid inquirers. To 
suppose that a book, forged in his name so shortly 
after his death, could Wave acquired such credit as 
to make it worth the while of an heretical leader to 
labour to show the accordance with it of his system, 
is utterly preposterous. 

2. But not only do these ancient heretics attest 
the existence in their day of the Gospels; they also 
attest the universal and devout acceptance of these 
by the Christians as of apostolic authority. This is 
rendered evident by the fact that these heretics 
never oppose any rival Gospels to those possessed 
by the orthodox; but, on the contrary, strive by all 
means to show the accordance of their peculiar 
opinions with the contents of the canonical Gospels. 
No reason can be assigned for this, but that they 
knew that these histories of our Lord were univer- 
sally acknowledged in the Christian Church as au- 

* Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i, p. 87. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 71 


thoritative documents of Christian belief. Suppose 
a man, claiming to be a member of the Church of 
Scotland, to be accused of heresy, and to endeavour 
earnestly to rebut that charge by contending that 
his opinions were in accordance with the Confession 
of Faith, would not such an appeal presume that by 
all the members of that Church that symbol was 
accepted as an accredited standard of belief? If 
not, how could the accordance of his opinions with 
it substantiate his claim to be purged of the charge 
of heresy, as tried by the standards of that Church ? 
The case before us is analogous. The ancient here- 
tics wished to be held genuine members of the 
Christian Church, notwithstanding their theosophic 
aberrations from the simplicity of the gospel, and 
for this purpose they argued from passages, and 
wrote commentaries on portions or on the whole of 
the canonical Gospels. Can anything more clearly 
show that these Gospels were wnwwersally recognised 
as the genuine and the proper standards by which 
Christian orthodoxy could alone be determined? If 
they were not, the labours of the heretics were as 
idle as would be the effort of a man who, claiming 
certain legal rights, should seek to substantiate that 
claim by an appeal to something which was not ac- 
knowledged as part of the law of the realm. 

The survey which has thus been made of the 
direct historical evidence in support of the genuine- 
ness of the canonical Gospels, shows us how cogent, 
how irrefragable is the proof of their being the 


%2 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


productions of the men whose names they bear. 
Whether we listen to friend or foe, to the orthodox 
professors of Christianity, or to the heretical opin- 
ionists who sought to engraft the dogmas of a mystic 
philosophy on the religion of Jesus Christ, we shall 
be alike assured that in these writings we have what, 
from the time of their composition, were univer- 
sally received as the only authentic histories of 
Christ. In this we have the evidence proper to 
such a question; and we have it in favour of these 
books to a degree to which no production of ancient 
profane literature so much as approwmates. 


CHAPTER IV. 


If THE GOSPELS ARE NOT GENUINE, HOW DID THEY 
ORIGINATE /—HYPOTHESIS OF AN ORIGINAL GOSPEL 
WHICH HAS BEEN INTERPOLATED. 


Arrer the preceding investigation, it is probably 
superfluous to dwell longer on this part of the sub- 
ject. Before leaving it, however, it may be worth 
while to look at two of the most celebrated hypoth- 
eses which have of late years been proposed, in 
order to account for the existence of such writings 
as the four Gospels, on the assumption that they are 
not genuine. 

Of these hypotheses, the first is that originally 
proposed by Eichhorn, and substantially adopted in 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 73 


this country by the late Bishop Marsh.* According 
to this, it is supposed that an account of the life of 
Christ was drawn up by some competent authority 
at an early period in the history of the Churech— 
that this constituted the original Gospel ( Ur-evan- 
gelium)—that in process of time this came to be 
variously altered and extended—that in this way 
many Gospels or narratives of the history of Christ 
came to be in circulation in the Church, and that, 
some time in the latter half of the second century, the 
-- Church selected from the mass of these the four now 
extant, and accredited them as the only orthodox Gos- 
pels. They thus came into their present prescriptive 
rights, while all the rest gradually passed into oblivion. 

It forms no part of my present object to discuss 
the once much-vexed question of an original Gospel. 
Not only is the assumption of such a document a 
purely gratuitous fiction, for which not a shadow of 
historical evidence can be furnished, but it has been 
proved to superfluity, by several able writers, that 
such an assumption can in no way be construed in 
accordance with the actual phenomena of the Gos- 
pels themselves.t I shall content myself with en- 

* Kichhorn and Marsh restrict their hypothesis to the first three 
Gospels, accepting that of John as genuine; but others who have 


adopted the hypothesis, refuse this restriction, and extend it to all 
the four. 


} Cf. Veysie, Examination of Mr. Marsh’s hypothesis respecting 
the origin of our first three canonical Gospels; Hug. Introduction, 
p. 356; Bishop Thirlwall’s Introduction to his translation of 
Schleiermacher’s Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke; David- 
son’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i, p. 384. 


74 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


deavouring to show, that the supposition that the 
canonical Gospels were produced by a gradual pro- 
cess of accretion and alteration is irreconcilable 
with certain undoubted facts. 

1. Of these I mention, first, the undoubted fact 
of their universal reception by the Christians of the 
second century. This Eichhorn fully admits, but 
accounts for it by the supposition that the Church 
stepped in authoritatively to settle the competing 
claims of the various Gospels, by setting her imprim- 
atur on these. “It is evident,” says he, “ that 
toward the end of the second, and in the beginning 
of the third century, the Church wrought hard to 
bring into general respect these four Gospels, which 
had been already, if not wholly, yet for the most 
part, extant in their present form, and to effect their 
general reception, to the suppression of other Gospel 
works which were in circulation.”* 

Let us beware that we be not imposed upon by 
specious combinations of high-sounding words in 
such a question. Eichhorn says that the Church 
determined for the Christians what Gospels they 
should accept; let us inquire what we are to under- 
stand by the word ‘“ Church” in such a connexion. 

Now, the only reply that can be given to this is, 
that by the Church is meant the whole body of 
orthodox Christians in the world at that time. It is 
not pretended that a decree of any council of bish- 
ops, or of any one claiming to be chief bishop of 


* Hinleit, i..157, 2te ausg. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 75 


the Catholic Church, was uttered in the second cen- 
tury for the purpose of settling the canon of the 
New Testament. The only meaning, therefore, 
which can be attached to Eichhorn’s words is, that — 
by the Church he means the whole body of Chris- 
tians in the world at that time. The supposition, 
then, is, that about the end of the second century, 
all the Christians in the world, either individually 
or by their representatives, came to an agreement 
to select, out of many narratives of our Lord’s life 
then in their possession, the four which we now 
possess. Now, what evidence is there that such a 
thing ever took place? Is there any record of it ?— 
any hint, of the most distant kind, in any ecclesias- 
tical writers, that such a convention ever met, or 
ever attempted to meet? ‘There is not. Further, 
from what we know of the condition of the Chris- 
tians in that age, is their meeting in such a way, 
for such a purpose, at all credible? Up to the close 
of the second century, the Churches existed as sepa- 
rate communities; they had no organization for 
simultaneous action; their leaders are not known 
to have met in council till the council at Nice, in 
the middle of the fourth century ; they were kept 
apart by distance of locality, differences of lan- 
guage, and, in many instances, by differences of 
sentiment; and, to crown all, they were kept in 
perpetual anxiety and unsettledness by the harass- 
ing assaults of their persecutors. Is it in the nature 
of things credible, that under these circumstances 


76 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


they should, by wnanimous consent, have come 
together, or by any process agreed to select four 
books, not apparently more generally diffused or of 
' greater reputation than the rest, and to have con- 
ferred upon them such authority, that from that 
time forward all others disappeared from common 
use, the licerise of transcribers was forever re- 
strained, and these now sacred four, though owing 
their existing form to tradition, fiction, and the 
ignorance or ingenuity of copyists, became thence- 
forward a treasure, over which the whole Church 
watched with jealous care, which no transcriber 
ever afterward violated, and no heretic presumed 
to assail? The common sense of mankind will, [ 
think, universally pronounce this ¢mpossible. But 
there are other difficulties which lie in the way of 
this supposition not less formidable. Had such a 
decision of the whole Church, as Eichhorn sup- 
poses, been deliberately come to, it must have been 
upon the ground that these four Gospels are the 
entire and genuine productions of the men whose 
names they bear. On no other ground could the 
assembled Christians have justified their prefer- 
ence, and on no other could the concurrence of all 
the Christians throughout the world have been 
secured. Now, in this case there are only three 
suppositions possible ; either they knew this ground 
to be true; or not knowing it to be true, they yet 
believed it to be so; or knowing it to be not true, 
they pretended to believe it. The only one of these 


& 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. U7 


propositions tenable is the jirst ; the second is phy- 
sically impossible, and the ¢herd is morally absurd, 
unless we believe all the Christians of the second 
century to have been knaves. But Eichhorn and 
his followers, by repudiating the only tenable sup- 
position of the three, must select between the phy- 
sical impossibility and the moral absurdity for that 
which they will embrace. 

2. A second fact, which is irreconcilable with the 
hypothesis that our canonical Gospels were got up in 
the way Eichhorn suggests, is, that before the end of 
the second century, copies of them were in general 
use among the Christians in all parts of the world. 
For this the evidence is abundant, and the fact is 
not denied by our opponents. Well, this assertion 
means two things; it means that MSS. of the four 
Gospels existed at the date mentioned, in numbers 
proportionate to the number of Christians at that 
time in the world, else these Gospels could not have 
been in general use among them; and it means that all 
these MSS. substantially agree with each other, else 
they could not have been copies of our four Gospels. 
Now, with this fact the impugners of the integrity 
of the Gospel are bound to deal, and it isone which 
I think they will hardly be able to make succumb 
to their hypothesis. By a carefully conducted in- 
vestigation, Mr. Norton has shown* that the number 
of copies of the Gospels extant at the period referred 
to, (allowing one copy to every fifty Christians,) can- 

% Vol. i, p. 31, ff. 


%8 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


not be estimated at less than sixty thousand. ~ How, 
we may ask, is the accordance of all these copies 
of the Gospels to be accounted for, except on the 
supposition that they were all honestly transcribed 
from some common archetype? Was that archetype, 
then, an authorized copy prepared by Eichhorn’s 
supposed “Church,” convened for the purpose? 
This is impossible: in those days of manuscript 
literature and tardy communication, it must have 
taken a long time to disseminate the Gospels over 
the whole civilized world, and to furnish so many 
copies of them—a time carrying us back far beyond 
the middle of the second century. It follows, then, 
that antecedent to that date, there existed an authen- 
tic exemplar of these Gospels, from which all the 
rest were transcribed. These Gospels, therefore, 
are not the compilations of mere collectors of tradi- 
tions, nor have they been disfigured by the wilful 
interpolations and alterations of transcribers. 

3. The last fact to which I shall refer, as incom- 
patible with the hypothesis of Eichhorn, is, the 
agreement of the extant codices or manuscripts 
and ancient versions of the Gospels. ‘There have 
been examined,” says Mr. Norton,* “ in a greater or 
less degree, about six hundred and seventy MSS. of 
the whole or of portions of the Greek texts of the 
Gospels. These were written in different countries 
and at different periods, probably from the fifth 
century downward. They have been found in 

* Vol. i, pp. 19, 20. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 79 


places widely remote from each other,—in Asia, in 
Africa, and from one extremity of Europe to the 
other.” 

To these we have to add the numerous MSS. 
extant of verszons of the Gospels in different lan- 
guages of these three great divisions of the world; 
of writings of the Christian fathers, abounding in 
quotations from the Gospels; and of ancient com- 
mentaries upon the Gospels, in which the text is 
cited. Now here is a huge body of testimony, and 
it is impossible but that the truth should be elicited, 
if this be properly dealt with. If all these witnesses 
substantially agree in their depositions, the fact al- 
leged cannot but be true. Should here and there a 
witness, through accident or infirmity, or even un- 
worthy design, differ from the rest, this cannot be 
held as at all invalidating the worth of their sub- 
stantial agreement; nay, it is only upon the assump- 
tion of that substantial agreement being admitted 
that these instances acquire their peculiarity and 
noticeableness. Assuming the truth of what the 
witnesses are adduced to prove, such incidental 
discrepancies can be easily accounted for; but 
there is no possibility of accounting for the sub- 
stantial agreement of this multitude of witnesses, 
if the truth of what they are adduced to prove be 
denied. 

How stands the case, then, with this immense 
body of witnesses for the integrity of the Gospels? 
The answer is, that their testimony is uniform in 


80 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


favour of that integrity, with only a few slight 
variations, 


“quas aut incuria fudit, 
Aut humana parum cavit natura,’ 


In other words, there is among all these MSS. a 
substantial agreement in what they furnish as the 
text of the Gospels; and consequently, as the only 
way of accounting for such agreement is their hav- 
ing all been copied, more or less remotely, from 
one archetype, it follows that in them we have sub- 
stantially a facthful transcript of the original MSS. 
Were it otherwise,—had, for instance, the course 
been followed which Eichhorn suggests, and had 
one transcriber here, and another there, altered, 
interpolated, or mutilated the text of his MS., as 
caprice, or taste, or opinion dictated; had one man 
inserted all the floating narratives concerning Christ 
which were circulating in the district in which he 
lived, and another, and a third done the same with 
those prevalent in his; had every Church that pos- 
sessed a MS. history of our Lord appended to it 
each new fact of his life that was transmitted to 
them from whatever source; and had every heresi- 
arch who had some favourite dogmata which he 
wished to surround with the authority of the great 
Author of Christianity, incorporated these with some 
professed discourse of our Lord, what would have 
been the consequence? Would it, in the nature of 


**« Which common frailty leaves or want of care.” 
Creech, Trans. of Horace’s Art of Poetry. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 81 


things, have been possible that such an agreement 
as we find in the text of the MSS. of the Gospels 
now extant would have existed? Would there even 
in that case have been such a thing as a generally 
received text of the Gospels? Would not every 
MS., or at least every family of MSS., have pre- 
sented us with a distinct narrative, a separate and 
independent compilation, so that instead of four 
Gospels, we should, perhaps, have had four hun- 
dred ? 

To place ourselves in a proper position for judg- 
ing in this matter, we must divest our minds of all 
the notions with which modern usages may have 
filled them, as to the issuing of books. It is easy 
now to diffuse, very widely, an interpolated edition 
of a work, because the art of printing enables us to 
make every edition of a work consist of as many 
copies as we please. One might thus interpolate 
thousands of copies of a book at once, and by cheap- 
ness of sale, or beauty of execution, might drive 
other and purer editions of the work out of the 
market. But in the days of MS. publication, such 
a thing was impossible. A transcriber could inter- 
polate or disfigure but one copy ata time. He could 
have no influence upon other copies executed by his 
contemporaries. His interpolated copy would have 
no more effect upon the copies of his own age, than 
one copy of a book printed on mildewed paper would 
have on the edition of which it formed apart. There 
would be one bad copy, and that would be all. Had, 

6 


82 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


therefore, interpolation and spontaneous addition 
been the practice of the early transcribers of the 
Gospels, such an agreement in the MSS. now ex- 
tant, as we find to exist, would have been an utter 
impossibility. 

These facts seem sufficient to set aside the hy- 
pothesis of Eichhorn, and to vindicaté the integrity 
of the Gospels. This conclusion, however, is capa- 
ble of receiving corroboration from various consid- 
erations, which it may be worth while briefly to 
state. And, in the first place, the supposition that 
in the early ages of Christianity the sacred books 
of the Christians were liable to be extensively cor- 
rupted by them, attributes to them, without reason 
or evidence, a propensity the very reverse of that 
exhibited by all the rest of mankind under similar 
circumstances; it assumes, that while all other re- 
ligionists, heathens as well as Jews, watched over 
their sacred books with the most jealous care, the 
Christians left theirs to be the prey of every careless 
copyist, or every meddling compiler.* Secondly. 
This is affirmed not only without evidence, but in 
the face of all the evidence we possess as to the 
feelings and habits of the early Christians, in refer- 


* The practice of the Jews in this particular is well known. For 
that of the Greeks, the reader is referred to the testimony of Her- 
odotus, Hist. v, 90, and vi, 57; and for that of the Romans, to Livy, 
Book iv, 8; ix, 18; to the Note of Servius on Virgil, Aen. vi, 72; 
and to Niebuhr’s Rom. Geschichte, vol. i, p. 526. Itis well known, 
also, with what care the sacred books of the Hindoos are kept by 
the Brahmins, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 83 


ence to their sacred books; the evidence being 
abundant that they watched, with the most rever- 
ential solicitude, over the integrity and safety of 
whatever was handed down to them as of apostolic 
origin, and viewed as a heinous crime all attempts 
at alterations of the sacred text, whether of the 
Old Testameiit or the New.* Thirdly. About the 
end of the second century, we find the Christians 
charging upon certain heretics the offence of hav- 
ing corrupted and mutilated the Gospels, and other 
New Testament books. With what propriety could 
this have been done, or how could the Christians 
have saved themselves from an overwhelming re- 
tort, had these Gospels been themselves the mass 
of systematic and acknowledged corruptions, which 
Eichhorn’s hypothesis supposes? Fourthly. At the 
end of the second century, and the beginning of the 
third, there flourished a Christian writer whose at- 
tention was much directed to sacred criticism, who 


* See the testimony of Papias ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles., iii, 39; 
Justin Mart. Dial. cwm Trypho., p. 361, ed. Thirl.; Apol., i, p. 54, 
p. 97; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, (A. D. 170,) ap. Euseb. Hist. 
Eccles. iv, 23; Irenzeus Cont. Haer. iii, 1, p. 173, ed. Massuet. iii, 11, 
§ 8, p. 190,i, 8, § 1, p. 37, ii, 28, § 2, p. 156; Clemens Alex. Strom. 
vii, § 16, p. 894, ed. Potter; Paed. iii, 12, p. 8309; Strom. iii, § 18, 
p- 553; Tertullian Adv. Marcion. iv, § 5, De Praescr. Haer. § 38, &e. 
Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, says, very pointedly, 
“to mutilate the sacred Scriptures would be a more fearful crime 
than the worship of the golden calf, or than the sacrifice of children 
to demons, or than slaying the prophets themselves.” Dial cum 
Tiypho., p. 296. Strong language like this shows how abhorrent 
were the Christians of the second century from the practice which 
Eichhorn charges on them. 


84 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


was a studious collater of MSS., who especially ex- 
amined those extant of the four Gospels, who has 
noticed, sometimes with strong censure of the care- 
lessness of the transcribers, the various readings 
these MSS. presented, and who wrote commentaries 
on the four Gospels. This writer was Origen. Now, 
had the MSS. of the Gospels in his: day (and he 
must have had access to Christian writings not of 
the second century only, but also of the first) dif- 
fered as widely from each other as they must have 
differed, had such a process been going on as that 
which Eichhorn supposes, it is not possible but that 
Origen should have perceived their manifold dis- 
crepancies, and, perceiving them, have animad- 
verted upon them. In his commentaries on the 
Gospels, however, we find that while he enumer- 
ates some fifteen or sixteen various readings, they 
are all of such a kind as still abound in the MSS. 
of the New Testament; they are all of them mere 
unimportant variations, such as juéoa for dea, Matt. 
Xvill, 1, ora for go71, Luke ix, 48, &c., and are 
most of them still to be found in the extant codices. 
From this the conclusion is irresistible, that in Ori- 
gen’s day “the manuscripts of the Gospels did not, 
to say the least, differ more from each other than 
those which we now possess ;” and consequently no 
such process of mutilation and interpolation as Eich- 
horn supposes, could have taken place in the age pre- 
ceding his. L%fthly. All ancient writers who have 
noticed the Gospels, are not only silent as to any 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 85 


manifest discrepancies between the MSS., but the 
notices they furnish indicate that none such existed. 
Siathly. Had the Gospels been interpolated, the 
unity of their style and form would have been de- 
stroyed, and a diversity of hand would have been 
clearly indicated by a diversity of manner, which is 
not the case. Seventhly. This latter consideration 
is strongly confirmed by the fact that the Gospels 
were transcribed by native Greeks,* persons en- 
tirely ignorant of the Hebrew language, and, con- 
sequently, persons who would write anything they 
had themselves to add, in the common dialect, and 
not in the Hellenistic. But the language of the 
Gospels is throughout Hellertistic, and, consequent- 
ly, these must have proceeded, entirely as they now 
are, from the Hebrew-Christian authors of them an- 
terior to transcription. ghthly. Spurious addi- 
tions to genuine writings, or works entirely spuri- 
ous, always betray their origin by some incongruity 
with the character or the circumstances of the pre- 
tended author, or of the age to which they are 
assigned ; whereas no such incongruities are exhib- 
ited by the Gospels. And, lastly. The consistency 
preserved throughout each of the Gospels, in all 
that relates to the actions, discourses, and most ex- 
traordinary character of Christ, shows that each is 
a work which remains essentially the same as it 


* Origen says expressly, J70 ‘EAAQvar ovveyG¢ yeadoueva Ta eb- 
ayyédia yn eldétov Tov diddextov. Comment. in Matt. xvi, 19, 
Opp. iii, 748. 


86 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


was originally written, uncorrupted by subsequent 
alterations or additions. 

The opponents of the integrity of the Gospels 
are fond of appealing to certain statements found 
in some of the early writers, by which they think 
their cause is sustained. Those adduced by Eich- 
horn are all that have been produced for this pur- 
pose, and one cannot but marvel how any person 
accustomed to weigh historical evidence could for a 
moment be induced to regard them as of the least 
weight in support of Eichhorn’s hypothesis. The 
first is the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth, pre- 
served by Eusebius, in which, after inveighing 
against certain “apostles of the devil,” as he calls 
them, who had corrupted some epistles of his, he 
adds, “ Against such a woe is denounced. It is not 
wonderful, therefore, that some have taken it upon 
them to corrupt the Scriptures of the Lord, since 
they have corrupted those which are not such.”* 
From this Eichhorn would have us to infer that in 
the time of Dionysius the corrupting of the sacred 
writings was a common usage among the Christians. 
At this rate, we must hold the good bishop as wit- 
nessing that the Christians of the second century 
were for the most part “apostles of the devil,” and 
men deserving “woe!” Who does not see that, 
while his testimony establishes the fact that some 
did use undue liberties with the sacred writings, 
this, so far from being a common practice, was re- 

* Hist. Hecles., iv, 23. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 87 


garded with horror by the Christians of his day 
The next passage is from Origen. After referring 
to the existence of different readings of Matt. xix, 
19, he says, “Now, clearly a great variety in the 
copies has arisen, whether from the carelessness of 
some writers, or from the rashness of others, and 
the bad correction of what has been written, or 
from their adding or taking away, in the correct- 
ing, as seemed fit to themselves.”* Now, in the 
enumeration here given by Origen of the sources 
of various readings in the MSS. of his day, it so 
happens that he omits to mention the very one, the 
existence and operation of which Eichhorn adduces 
his words to prove—viz., intentional alterations and 
interpolations on the part of transcribers or com- 
pilers. He complains of carelessness, rashness, un- 
skilful or arbitrary correction of clerical mistakes, 
but not one word of designed alteration in the swb- 
stance of the narrative. His words, therefore, prove 
nothing but what without his testimony we could 
very readily have believed, viz., that the copyists 
of the first and second century were not more ex- 
empt from human infirmities, and consequent lia- 
bility to fall into errors, than their brethren of the 
eleventh or the fourteenth. The third witness sum- 
moned is the heathen Celsus, and his testimony 
Eichhorn dresses up in the following fashion :—“ In 
the second century, this practice [of making addi- 
tions to the Gospels from generation to generation | 


* Comment. in Matt., Opp. iii, 671. 


88 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


was so generally known, that it came to the knowl- 
edge of men who did not belong to the Christians, 
and Celsus reproaches them with having, like fools, 
changed their Gospel three, four times, and oftener.”’* 
The learned German seems to have been ambitious 
of imitating the “folly” which he makes Celsus 
charge upon the ‘early Christians, else he would 
hardly have called the attention of his readers to a 
passage so directly militating against himself as the 
one he has cited. The whole passage, as given by 

Origen, with his reply, runs as follows :—* A fter- 
ward, he (¢. e., Celsus) says that some of the faith- 
ful, as if through drunkenness, have brought them- 
selves to alter the Gospel from the original writing, 
three, four times, and oftener, and transform it, so 
as that they might have the means of denying what 
is alleged against them. Now, I know of none who 
have altered the Gospel, except the followers of 
Marcion, of Valentinus, and I think also of Lucan ; 
nor is this crime to be charged against the word, 
[z. é., Christianity,] but against those who have dared 
to corrupt the Gospels. And as the false sentiments 
of the sophists, the epicureans, the peripatetics, or 
any others who have erred, is no crime against phi- 
losophy, neither is it a reproach to genuine Chris- 
tianity, that some corrupt the Gospels and introduce 
sects foreign to the doctrine of J esus.”+ Having 
placed the whole passage, as well as EKichhorn’s 


* Einleit, in d. N. T., i, p. 704, 2d ed. 
t Contr. Cels., Hl, Osta ea: Spencer. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 89 


version, before my readers, I have now to request 
their attention to the following remarks :—1. It ap- 
pears that the sole evidence which Eichhorn ean ad- 
duce of a “general acquaintance” with the alleged 
conduct of the Christians in mutilating their sacred 
books, and of this being known to “men who were 
not Christians,” is a charge brought against them 
by one man, and that exclusively on his own per- 
sonal authority. 2. This charge which Eichhorn 
says Celsus brought against the Christians as a 
body, Celsus expressly limits to some (tivdc) of 
them, thereby virtually exculpating the mass; for, 
as Mr. Norton justly remarks, “it is of the nature 
of such a charge, when brought against some of 
any community, to exculpate the community in 
general.” 3. Those thus chargeable, it turns out, 
from Origen’s reply, were not genuine believers, 
but men whom genuine believers repudiated as 
heretics. 4. The charge of corrupting the Gospels, 
Origen treats as a reproach of the nature of a crimi- 
nal indictment (@yxAqua) against the Christians, in 
which light he never could have pretended to re- 
gard it, had it been “generally known” that the 
‘Christians were in the habit of doing so. 5. Celsus 
says, that the parties of whom he speaks had acted 
“like drunken men,” a comparison the justness of 
which Origen does not dispute, nor, we suppose, 
will any dispute who considers how silly and ruin- 
ous to their own cause such conduct as Celsus im- 
putes to them would have been. It follows that 


90 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Eichhorn would have us to believe that, in the 
second century, the Christians (as was generally 
known) were apt to act no better or more wisely 
than if they had been drunken men! If the muti- 
lation of sacred books justly exposes a man profess- 
ing to follow these books to such a charge, there 
are, I fear, certain learned professors whose charac- 
ters for sobriety are more likely to be jeopardized 
than those of the Christians of the second century ! 
The last witness whom Eichhorn adduces is Clement 
of Alexandria, and here too (to pronounce the gen- 
tler judgment) he blunders. “Clement,” says he, 
“at the end of the second century, speaks already 
of corrupters of the Gospels, and ascribes it to 
them, that, in Matt. v, 10, in place of the words 
ért abTav got h Baoctreia THY ovoava@y, there were 
found in the MSS. sometimes 6t: abrot éoovtar TéA- 
evot, sometimes dru Eover té6rov rrov ob diwyOjoovrat,”* 
If this were true, it would prove that “corruption 
of the Gospels” had gone to such a fearful extent in 
the second century, that not only were passages in- 
serted or omitted, but even the plainest passages 
were wantonly altered, at the caprice of the tran- 
scriber. This, whick would be too much even for 
Eichhorn’s hypothesis, is happily averted by simply 
attending to what Clement really says. The reader 
will find the passage in his Stromata, lib. iv, § 41, 
(p. 582, ed. Potter,) and on turning to it, he will 
discover that Clement does not say one word of 
* Kinleit, i, 705. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 91 


either corrupters or copyists, but limits his remarks 
exclusively to certain interpreters or scholiasts, (rivec 
TOY pEeTaTLOévTwY Ta evayyédta,) as, indeed, Eich- 
horn himself subsequently tells us, the word 
means.* 

I may remark, in conclusion, that Eichhorn, by 
admitting the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, has 
laid an axe at the root of his hypothesis as to the 
origin of the other three. If one of these be genu- 
ine, they are all genuine. The Church of the 
second century placed them all on an equal footing 
in this respect. But if there was one of them which 
was known to be genuine, while the others were 
not known to be so, how can we account for the 
latter being placed on an equal footing with the 
former by unanimous consent? Would not those 
Churches, which had been accustomed for more 
than half a century to read the fourth Gospel as the 
undoubted production of St. John, have indignantly 
repudiated the attempt to place on a par with that 
a set of anonymous and unauthorized compilations 
which had arisen they knew not when or how? 
All their prejudices and all their principles would 
arm them against such a proposal. We can con- 
ceive of no motive that would tempt them to accede 
to it. Had such a thing been attempted, Christian 
antiquity would have resounded with vehement 
protests against it. The silent acquiescence of the 


2 


* «Clement Alex., Strom. iv, p. 490, refers to these scholiasts un- 
der the name tév x. r. 4.”,—Einleit. iii, 533. 


92 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


whole Church in the equal claims of these four 
Gospels, necessitates the conclusion, that if one is 
genuine, all are genuine. 


CHAPTER V. 


THE MYTHIC HYPOTHESIS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE 
CANONICAL GOSPELS. 


Tux path opened by Eichhorn has been assiduously 
pursued by many of his countrymen. These men, 
learned, laborious, but far from sound-minded, prone 
to set all the probabilities of ordinary experience at 
naught, and asking little aid from either a compre- 
hensive philosophy or an exact logic, have taken up 
the notion of a gradual accretion of materials during 
the post-apostolic age round some nucleus of fact 
handed down from the age preceding, and have 
toiled to work it up into a more specious theory of 
the origin of the Gospels than that which Eich- 
horn produced. The result has been the Mythic 
Hypothesis, of which the ablest expounder is 
Dr. David Frederick Strauss. In his “Life of 
Jesus Critically examined,” this writer has brought 
together into one result the materials which his 
countrymen had for half a century before been 
accumulating, in order to invalidate the pretensions 
of the Gospel narrative to be taken as genuine 
history. The prominence which has of late been 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 93 


given to this hypothesis, and the measure of applause 
with which it has been welcomed even in this 
country, render it desirable that in such a discussion 
as the present, an attempt should be made to test 
its worth. I believe it to be utterly baseless, and to 
the highest degree improbable; and this I shall 
hope to prove so as to leave the same conviction on 
the minds of all who shall candidly weigh what I 
have to advance. 

I commence by describing the hypothesis itself. 
According to it, the Biblical narratives are viewed 
as forming the body of the ancient Jewish and 
Christian mythology. The subject of ancient my- 
thology has of late years occupied much of the 
attention of the scholars of Germany, and in the 
hands of several of them has assumed a scientific 
form, which has enabled the inquirer into the his- 
tory of the heroic ages to account for much of the 
faith and worship of the people, which before ap- 
peared incapable of explanation. The theory which 
has most commended itself is that according to 
which the myths of the pagan religions are to be 
viewed purely as fictions, some of which may have 
been gathered round an actual nucleus of fact, but 
the most of which are derived from pure invention. 
For these fictions, however, the people were not 
indebted to any individuals by whom they were 
first conceived and published; this supposition is 
incompatible with the general faith reposed by the 
people in these stories—a faith which would not 


94 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


have been yielded to any individual, however 
elevated his station or commanding his genius. 
No; certain religious ideas had become diffused 
through the minds of the people themselves; the 
community had become habituated to certain forms 
of thought and feeling of a religious kind; they 
were thus prepared to receive and credit any story 
which harmonized with their religious conceptions 
and emotions; and, consequently, when any one of 
more vivid imagination than his neighbours suc- 
ceeded in embodying these in some well-fitting 
story, it was accepted at once by the community, 
and retained from that time forward its place in the 
popular belief. Ottfried Miller, whose work on 
scientific mythology* is regarded as a standard 
exposition of this theory of myths, illustrates it by 
the story of Apollo and Marsyas. Apollo was be- 
lieved by the Greeks to be the inventor of the lyre, 
which they were wont to play at his festivals. 
Marsyas, a deity of Phrygia, was the inventor of 
the flute, and as the Greeks soon perceived the 
want of harmony between the sounds of the flute 
and those of the lyre, the idea rose that Apollo must 
hate Marsyas. But mere hatred was not enough; 
Greece must overtop the world, and the gods of 
Greece vanquish those of all other nations; there- 
fore the belief arose that Apollo must vanquish 
Marsyas. When this belief was well confirmed, a 
Greek wandered into Phrygia, and near the castle 
* Recently translated into English by Mr. Leitch. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 95 


of Celcene, in a cavern whence flowed a stream or 
torrent, called Marsyas, he found suspended a skin 
flask, placed there by the Phrygians in honour of 
Marsyas, who was their Silenus. Immediately on 
his prepared mind the conception flashes, ‘“ Here is 
the catastrophe of the whole! When Apollo had 
vanquished Marsyas, he flayed him and made his 
skin into a bottle, which is here suspended.” And 
so the story arose and gradually got afloat among 
the people, and became part of thei mythology. 
Such is the theory of myths which Dr. Strauss 
adopts and proposes to apply to the history of our 
Lord, as recorded in the evangelists. Whether this 
theory be sound or not I cannot stop here to examine. 
Before proceeding further, however, I would have 
my readers distinctly to mark, from the illustration 
above given, and which Dr. Strauss especially com- 
mends to our notice, what it is which constitutes 
amyth. In this story we have a mingling of the 
real with the ideal. The only part of it which is 
purely ideal (excepting the original invention of 
Apollo himself and his rival Marsyas) is the last. 
The hatred of Apollo to Marsyas, their contest, and 
the victory of the former, are mere poetical modes 
of describing certain facts. Those parts of the story 
admit of—nay, demand—a natural explanation. 
They are resolvable into certain phenomena of 
Greek taste and Greek nationality. They mean 
that the flute and the lyre did not harmonize, that 
the Greeks liked the lyre better than the flute; and 


96 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


because the former was their instrument, and be- 
cause they liked it better, they assigned it the 
absolute superiority over the latter. But the story 
of the flaying is a pure invention ; it means nothing; 
it points to no natural or historical fact; it is a mere 
fiction suggested by a skin bottle suspended over the 
River Marsyas to an imaginative Greek, who be- 
lieved that Apollo hated Marsyas, and vanquished 
him when they competed for the palm of music. 
Such is Miiller’s own selected paradigm of the gene- 
sis of a popular myth, which Dr. Strauss has quoted 
at full length, in order, as he says, to render the 
subject of mythology “ familiar to all theologians.” 
The point which these writers appear to be most 
anxious to press upon their readers by adducing it 
is, that to a myth this mingling of the real with the 
ideal is essential, and, along with that, the fact that 
myths arise, not from intentional contrivance on the 
part of any individuals, but unconsciously, as the 
form in which prevailing ideas and emotions of a 
religious kind clothe themselves. 

Of such stories Dr. Strauss considers the greater 
part of the life of Christ, as recorded in the evan- 
gelists, to consist. He assumes that the minds of 
the Jews were familiar with the miraculous stories 
of the Old Testament—that they were filled with 
the expectation that when the Messiah should come 
he would excel all who had gone before him in the 
wonders attendant on his advent and distinguishing 
his life—that a Jewish rabbi of the name of Jesus 


7 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 97 


appeared in Judea, and excited much attention by 
his teaching—nay, produced an overwhelming im- 
pression upon those around him by his personal 
character and discourses, and that during his life- 
time the belief arose that he was the Messiah, and 
though this spread very slowly while he was alive, 
after his death it rapidly gained numerous adherents, 
especially as the belief in his resurrection, “however 
that belief may have arisen,” tended prodigiously to 
confirm it. From all this he argues that a number 
of wonderful stories would be told concerning Jesus; 
that people would go on adding to these, especially 
applying to him the miraculous narratives of the 
Old Testament; that the ideas which he had incul- 
cated upon his followers would by them be clothed 
in fables of a narrative cast; that one story would 
suggest another, and thus in the course of a short 
time a large body of myths would become clustered 
around the name and person of Jesus. In the pro- 
cess, moreover, of tradition, these would frequently 
get mixed and confused, so as to lose sight of the 
idea they originally embodied, and thus degenerate 
into mere legends; while it is almost certain that 
in putting them together into one collection, the 
authors would introduce some additions of their 
own, “merely to give clearness, connexion, and 
climax to the representation.” As the early Chris- 
tians were very anxious to glorify Christ, they gave 
ready credence to all these productions, and em- 
braced them as actual histories of our Lord’s life. 


98 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


In application of this theory of the composition 
of the Gospels, Dr. Strauss affirms that between 
the formation of the first Christian Church and the 
publication of the Gospels which bear the names 
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a series of 
stories concerning the wonderful birth, conduct, 
doctrines, death, and resurrection of Jesus of 
Nazareth, had been formed unconsciously in the 
imaginations of his followers—that in the course of 
transmission, these had been in several instances 
transmuted into mere legends, and that the cycle of 
fable thus constructed, we have, in a collected form, 
with certain spontaneous additions in these so-called 
Gospels, which are the productions of some anony- 
mous writers who, to give them greater reputation, 
issued them under the name of disciples of Jesus. 
I proceed to offer what appear to me fatal objections 
to this position; but, in the outset, I would request 
my readers to observe how conveniently for him- 
self Dr. Strauss has constructed his theory. He 
reminds one of the preacher who always took 
several verses to speak from, assigning as a reason, 
that when he felt himself straitened in one, he could 
flee to the next. In like manner, Dr. Strauss has so 
planned his hypothesis, that when he finds himself 
unable to make good his position under one phase 
of it, he has only to shift his ground, and hope for 
better fortune under another. When he cannot 
make out any one of the Gospel narratives to be a 
myth, he can betake himself to the supposition that 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 99 


it is a legend; and when neither myth nor legend 
will serve his purpose, he has still in reserve the 
supposition that it may be an addition of the com- 
piler. If my readers should insist upon knowing on 
what principle the author determines under which 
of those three heads any narrative is to be classed, 
the only answer I can give them is, that so far as 
I have been able to discover, Dr. Strauss’s principle 
is analogous to that of the ancient schoolmaster, who, 
to abbreviate the processes of geography, was wont 
to say to his pupils: -“ Boys, the world may be con- 
veniently divided into three parts,—Great Britain, 
Europe, and the rest; now, when you want to know 
where any place is, look first for it in Great Britain ; 
if you cannot find it there, look next for it in Europe ; 
and if you cannot find it in Europe, you may be sure 
it is in the rest of the world.” So says Dr. Strauss: 
“Try the myth first: if that will not do, try the 
legend; if that fails, there is the limitless field 
of spontaneous addition—you will be sure to find 
room for it there. Anything, in short, rather than 
believe it.” In the remarks which I am about to 
offer, I shall not trouble my readers by attending 
curiously to this ingenious device of the author, as 
the objections [have to offer will, for the most part, 
apply alike to all the phases of his hypothesis, or be 
directed more especially against that which is most 
novel—his assertion that the Gospel narratives are 
myths. 

1. The first observation which I offer upon the hy- 


100 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


pothesis of Dr. Strauss is, that the formation of such 
a cycle of myths and legends as he supposes the 
evangelic history to be, would have been impossible 
in the space of time which must necessarily be 
assigned for it. To feel the full force of this objec- 
tion, it is necessary to keep in mind that the asser- 
tion with which we have to deal is, not that the 
Gospels contain a set of fables invented by a few 
individuals, but that they comprise a series of myths 
embodying widely-spread ideas, and originated by 
the plastic hand of popular fancy, and the moulding 
influence of long-transmitted tradition. A history 
purely fabulous might have been invented ina very 
short time ; a series of anecdotes might have been 
easily got up by any one so disposed, within a few 
weeks after our Lord’s death. But that the Gospels 
had any such origin as this, Dr. Strauss treats as 
ridiculous. He regards them as a collection of 
stories which arose slowly, unconsciously, and by a 
sort of common consent, in the minds of the Chris- 
tians all over the countries into which they were 
dispersed, during the first years of the Church. 
Now this I affirm to have been dmpossible in the 
time within which such a process must of necessity 
be confined. 

All experience shows that the formation of a my- 
thological system is one of the tardiest processes in 
which the minds of a people engage. The real 
myths which we find in Homer and Hesiod had 
their origin in the long centuries which had elapsed 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 101 


between the first separation of the Pelasgian race 
from the common stock and the period which ter- 
minates the mythic age of Greece. The myths of 
India are the slow growth of many centuries; so 
were those of Egypt; so were those of Scandi- 
navia; and so have all popular mythologies been. 
It is not conceivable how it could have been other- 
wise. That which creates itself unconsciously in 
the mind of a people, comes into form by a neces- 
sarily tardy process. An idea must be long brooded 
over by the mind of a community ere it takes form 
and substance in the shape of astory. Like the egg 
of the ostrich, it must undergo a lengthened burial, 
and be subjected to a high temperature ere the im- 
prisoned life will burst forth, and offer to take wing. 
And when the question is not of one story, but of a 
whole cycle of stories, it is manifestly incompatible 
with any just reason to suppose that this could be 
the growth of a few decennia, or of less than sev- 
eral ages. The popular mind is not a hot-bed in 
which growth can be forced. Mythology, like its 
own phcenix, has a birth only once in the lapse of 
centuries. 

The same thing is true of the effect of tradition 
in altering or confusing the belief of older times. It 
is astonishing how slowly a people admit any altera- 
tion into their hereditary belief. However apt tra- 
dition may be to corrupt the details of a new story, 
it is usually a faithful transmitter of general facts 
which have been invested with the solemnities of 


102 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


religion. Hindooism is at this moment substantially 
what it was centuries before Christ. The myths of 
Homer are not greatly different from those of Ovid, 
though nearly a thousand years, and these crowded 
with events calculated to stir and quicken the 
popular mind, must have elapsed between the writ- 
ing of the “Iliad” and the writing of the “ Metamor- 
phoses.” 

All this goes to prove that a series of fabulous 
narratives, of a mythical and legendary character, 
so extensive and varied, could not possibly have 
gathered around the person of Jesus in so short a 
space of time as must, of necessity, be assigned for 
this purpose. The time claimed by Dr. Strauss for 
the formation of the mythic part of these narratives 
is thirty years, or thereabouts, the period which 
elapsed between the death of Jesus and the de- 
struction of Jerusalem; the legendary part, he 
thinks, had time enough to form during the period 
which elapsed between the destruction of Jerusalem 
and the composition of the Gospels. This latter 
event he places in the middle of the second century. 

The date thus assumed for the composition of 
the Gospels has been already abundantly shown to 
be false ; and with that, by Strauss’s own showing, 
his whole hypothesis falls to the ground. If, as he 
admits, a century and a half is the shortest possible 
time that can be assigned as having elapsed between 
the death of Christ and the composition of the Gos- 
pels, so as to render his hypothesis credible, the 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 1038 


proof already furnished, that not one-third of that 
time can be assigned to this interval, overthrows his 
entire theory from the foundation. But even sup- 
posing all this line of argiment must be relinquished, 
supposing the authorship of the Gospels enveloped 
in uncertainty, there is still another point essential to 
Dr. Strauss’s hypothesis, which appears to me sur- 
rounded with insuperable difficulty. I refer to his 
position that the body of myths which forms the 
basis of the Gospel narratives arose during the 
thirty years which intervened between the death of 
Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. This, as 
already shown, is assuming for these so-called myths 
a rapidity of formation such as no other cycle of 
myths has displayed, and such as seems incompatible 
with the conditions of mythic existence. Now, on 
this part of the subject I need not enlarge, for Dr. 
Strauss fully admits the force of the reasoning. He 
concedes that the period specified “is much too 
short to admit of the rise of so rich a collection of 
mythi.” How, then, does he account for their ex- 
istence within that period? By what appears a very 
desperate hypothesis—the last resource of one who 
feels his ground sinking beneath him. “ We have 
shown,” says he, “that the greater part of these 
mythi did not arise during that period, for their first 
foundations were laid in the legends of the Old 
Testament, before and after the Babylonish exile ; 
and the transference of these legends, with suitable 
modifications, to the expected Messiah, was made in 


104 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


the course of the centuries which elapsed between 
the exile and the time of Jesus.” I have stigma- 
tized this as a desperate resort. Itis one to which we 
may be very sure Dr. Strauss would not have betaken 
himself had any other presented itself to his mind 
that seemed at all plausible. For, in the first place, 
such a supposition is against all analogy. Where 
can Dr. Strauss point to any mythic cycles in which 
anything like this is traceable? All the myths of 
heathenism are conceptions which have risen out 
of the original impression which some individual, 
supposed to exist, has produced upon the mind of 
the community. The case of a people forming a 
series of myths that related to no actual object, and 
keeping these 7m petto until some one appeared, 
around whom they could suitably. suspend them, is 
one which has its existence nowhere but in the 
imagination of Dr. Strauss. 2dly. How, upon this 
supposition, does Dr. Strauss account for the fact 
that the incidental and sometimes obscure notices 
in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah should 
have come out into such clear, and definite, and 
precise conceptions in the recorded actions of Jesus? 
If we suppose that the former were predictions, and 
the latter historical fulfilments of these, the fact re- 
ferred to is fully explained. But, according to Dr. 
Strauss’s theory, this fact appears to me very inex- 
plicable. Is it not marvellous that conceptions 
which for centuries had been floating vaguely and 
dimly in the minds of a people should, all at once, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 105 


without any apparent cause, assume definite forms, 
and settle down into historical shape? For centu- 
ries the people had been pondering this theme, and 
yet had got no further than to the entertaining of a 
few vague anticipations, when all at once a new 
power descends upon them, and, in the course of 
thirty years, these dim aspirations after a Messiah. 
start up into a majestic series of legends in which 
they assume all the precision and firmness of his- 
torical narrative! So sudden and miraculous a 
growth has not been witnessed since Deucalion and 
his wife renewed the race by casting stones over 
their shoulders, or since Cadmus sowed his crop of 
dragon’s teeth. Is not the one about as credible as 
the others?* 3dly. Supposing it proved that among 
the Jewish followers of Christ the influence of na- 
tional tradition was sufficient to lead them to invest 
him with mythic qualities borrowed from the Old 
Testament, it remains incredible how any such 
influence could have availed to produce the same 
result among the Gentile converts. In their minds 
there was no previous “ Messianic idea.” All this 
was absolutely new to them. How, then, did the 
myths concerning Jesus take exactly the same form 


* By-the-by, it is not only in the suddenness of their growth 
that the myths of the Gospels, as Dr. Strauss represents the nar- 
ratives of the evangelists, recall to one’s mind this old Pelasgic 
myth of Cadmus and his crop of armed men. There is another 
point of resemblance in the use Dr. Strauss makes of these so- 
called myths. He sets them to slay each other, as did the soldiers 
of Cadmus, and rescues only some four or five of them, exactly 
after the fashion of the old mythic fable. 


106 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


and hue with them as they did with the Jews? 
Here manifestly is, on Dr. Strauss’s theory, an effect 
without a cause; and be it remembered, that the 
fact here referred to is the chef fact m the case, for, 
at the close of the second century, the number of 
Jewish converts to Christianity formed but a trifling 
portion compared with that of those converted from 
heathenism. At the utmost, therefore, granting all 
Dr. Strauss here pleads for, his theory accounts only 
for the least important and least difficult part of the 
phenomena. 4thly. Dr. Strauss’s hypothesis is self- 
destructive. He assumes that the belief in a miracle- 
working Messiah was so strong among the Jews 
that it gave birth to this whole cycle of myths con- 
cerning Jesus; and he builds upon this the position 
that a man of humble descent, in poor circumstances, 
who did no miracles, and in no way answered to the 
universal expectation of the Messiah, nevertheless 
conceived the idea that he was the Messiah, suc- 
ceeded in persuading others to the same belief, and 
gathered around him a multitude of followers who 
perseveringly ascribed to him all that he was not, 
but what they believed the Messiah was to be! If 
Dr. Strauss really believes such a thing as this pos- 
sible, he furnishes, perhaps, the most remarkable 
instance yet encountered of the truth of Pascal’s 
saying: “Les incredules sont les plus credules.” 
To most other people, I presume, it will be clear to 
demonstration, that either what he assumes is false, 
or what he builds on it is absurd. Were it possible 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 107 


for such a thing to have happened as he here sup- 
poses, it would follow that the likeliest way to enjoy 
the benefit of a popular belief is to contradict that 
belief in every possible way ; that the surest method 
of persuading a community which is expecting the 
advent of a deliverer possessing certain criterial 
qualities, is to appear among them destitute of every 
one of these qualities, and having many directly 
opposite; and that the spontaneous birth in the 
mind of an individual, and of the community, of a 
sincere belief that he is an expected deliverer, is 
the natural result of his producing an impression 
by qualities and conduct the very opposite to those 
which he and all around him believed that deliverer 
would exhibit. Am I not justified in asserting that 
to such a desperate hypothesis Dr. Strauss would not 
have had recourse, had he not felt that his ground 
was utterly untenable, and that a violent leap after 
a shadow was better, after all, than to sink in- 
gloriously among the crumbling fragments of a 
“baseless fabric.” 

2. The state of the people among whom this cycle 
of myths is supposed to have arisen, was such as to 
render this supposition incredible. A myth is the 
development of prevailing popular belief or feeling 
in some suitable story. Wherever it appears, there- 
fore, it bears the impress of the age in which it 
arose; and it can arise only in an age when imagi- 
nation is so active that belief can hardly be said to 
be an act of judgment, when all improbabilities are 


108 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


readily ascribed to the present agency of Deity, and 
when (as the best expounder of the Grecian myths 
in this country has expressed it) “credulity is at its 
maximum, as well in the narrator himself as in his 
hearers.”* Now, by both of these criteria may the 
Gospel narratives be shown not to be myths. 

These narratives do not embody the prevailing 
belief and feeling of the people among whom they 
are supposed to have originated. According to Dr. 
Strauss, it was in Judea that they chiefly arose. But 
who needs to be told that the prevailing opinions 
and aspirations of the Jews, at the time when Jesus 
appeared among them, find no utterance whatever 
in these narratives? In which of them is embodied 
their sullen nationalism? Which of them gives ex- 
pression to their suppressed but deep hatred of their 
Roman conquerors? Where shall we find in them 
any trace of that cherished hope of the people—a 
Messiah invested with temporal dignity, sitting on 
the throne of David, and triumphing gloriously over 
all the enemies of Israel? Had the popular feeling 
of the Jews clothed itself in myths at the time of 
Christ’s appearance, is it credible that none of these, 
which were notoriously the predominating, the all- 
pervading sentiments of the people, should have 
found development in such myths? And does not 
the entire absence of such sentiments from the Gos- 
pel narratives, except when they are hinted at to 
be condemned, present a clear proof that whatever 

* Grote, Hist. of Greece, vol. i, p. 572, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 109 


may have been the source of these narratives, the 
supposition that they arose spontaneously in the 
minds of thousands in Judea, as the embodiment 
of the common feelings and views of the nation, is 
utterly absurd. 

Not less absurd is it to suppose that a whole se- 
ries of myths could gather round the person of any 
individual living in such an age of the world as 
that in which Jesus appeared. Was that an age of 
all-receiving credulity ?—the age of Sadduceeism in 
Judea; of pyrrhonism in Greece; of universal doubt 
and scepticism all over the Roman world?—the age 
of Tacitus, of Juvenal, and of Lucian ?—the age of 
Alexandrine criticism and Antiochean learning ?— 
an age of which Pilate’s contemptuous question, 
“What is truth?” furnishes the genuine and charac- 
teristic expression? Is this the sort of age in which 
myths are rife, and find ready belief? Is this an 
age the men of which could be persuaded, by any 
possible influence, into such a state of congenial 
ecstasy as to dream all at once that one of their 
own contemporaries had become invested with the 
attributes of Deity, and had established a religion 
of infallible truth upon the basis of miraculous evi- 
dence? Let not Dr. Strauss say that we are taking 
him here at a disadvantage—that we are ascribing 
to the district of Judea a state of things which is 
true only of the more cultivated parts of the Roman 
empire. Tf this be alleged in bar of the objection, 
I reply that it is irrelevant, and that for two rea- 


110 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


sons. In the first place, it was no¢ in Judea that 
the religion of Christ found its most numerous ad- 
herents, but in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Italy, in 
Egypt; in short, in the very countries where litera- 
ture and science had reached their greatest advance- 
ment. And, in the second place, let the literary 
condition of the Jews in the time of Christ be esti- 
mated as low as Dr. Strauss pleases, still I maintain 
that, situated as Judea was in the very centre of 
Asiatic and Egyptian learning, it is incredible that 
any such series of legends could have grown up 
and been propagated there to any extent in such an 
age. With Alexandria on the one hand, and the 
cities of Asia Minor on the other, and maintaining 
with these, the seats of learning, the haunts of 
science, and the emporia of commerce, a close and 
frequent intercourse, it is incredible that Judea 
could have been left in that state of primitive sim- 
plicity and credulity, in which alone it is possible 
for such a series of myths to have arisen in the 
minds of any considerable portion of her commu- 
nity. Under such circumstances, I do not hesitate 
to pronounce Dr. Strauss’s hypothesis a gross his- 
torical impossibility. 

3. This hypothesis leaves us without any satisfac- 
tory mode of accounting for the origin and early 
progress of Christianity. The existence of Chris- 
tianity in our world, as a religion professed by 
myriads for the last eighteen hundred years, is an 
undeniable fact: how is it to be accounted for? 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. BEY 


How did this religion arise? Whence did it spring? 
If we take the Gospels as containing true historical 
narratives, the answer to these questions is easy. 
Christianity had its rise in the teaching, the mira- 
cles, the sacrificial death, the resurrection, and as- 
cension of Jesus Christ. It is a religion resting 
upon facts of a supernatural kind, which at once 
prove its divine origin and constitute its unalterable 
basis. But if the narratives in the Gospels be re- 
jected as myths, it follows not only that no record 
is extant of the origin of a religious movement 
which, shortly after its commencement, had spread 
over the most enlightened countries in the world, 
and which has, beyond all question, been the might- 
lest agent in moulding the human character that 
has ever yet appeared; not only is the source of 
this mighty power veiled in obscurity, so that no 
man can write the history of its rise, but in addition 
to this, we are forced upon conclusions which go to 
land us in the absurdity of making Christianity the 
parent of itself. For, let us ask Dr. Strauss and his 
followers, Which came first? the religion or the 
myths? Their reply, I suppose, would be, that the 
religion came first, and gave rise to the myths; but 
if so, I ask, What gave rise to the religion? It was 
not surely autochthonous. It certainly had an au- 
thor—was that author Jesus? If so, how came his 
followers, already in possession of a theological sys- 
tem tanght by him, to think of inventing all those 
myths concerning him? They must have received 


112 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


his doctrines at first either upon the ground of their 
speculative truth, or on the ground of his divine 
authority. If the former, they must have felt that 
these doctrines were true in themselves, apart from 
any pretensions on the part of the teacher to super- 
natural intelligence, and consequently would never 
have thought of inventing miracles for the purpose 
of investing them with greater weight. If the lat- 
ter, then what was there in Jesus which secured for 
him the authority upon which his doctrines were 
received by multitudes who never saw him, and 
after his death by multitudes who had hated and 
despised him while alive? Dr. Strauss’s answer is, 
that the belief in Christ’s resurrection, “ however 
that may have arisen,” especially conduced to this 
result. But it will not do for Dr. Strauss to take 
refuge in such a vague generality as that. He is 
bound, on his hypothesis, to show how this belief in 
Christ’s resurrection arose in the early Church. 
That Christ really did rise, he, of course, regards as 
a myth. Here, then, it appears, is a myth which 
not only gave origin to all the rest, but seems to 
have given origin to itself! There are but three 
suppositions possible here :—1. That Christ actually 
did rise from the dead; 2. That the assertion of his 
having risen was an imposition practised by the 
apostles upon the multitude; or, 3. That this belief 
got up in the minds of his followers and won for 
him more followers, in all of whose minds the same 
belief arose spontaneously, though hundreds of them 


4 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 113 


had never heard of a resurrection before. Between 
these two latter suppositions, Dr. Strauss hovers un- 
easily, in his remarks upon the resurrection, as if 
uncertain which to prefer. We may make him 
welcome to either. If he take the former, he must 
give up his theory of myths, and fall back upon the 
old infidel notion of deceptions. If he take the 
latter, he retains his myths, but burdened with an 
absurdity of which no sane man will envy him the 
stewardship. 

It may be further observed here, that on the sup- 
position that the religion of Christ gave rise to the 
so-called myths of the Gospels, we might naturally 
expect, the further we recede toward the apostolic 
age, to find the religion of the Christians becoming 
less and less historical, and more and more doc- 
trinal ;—less conversant with the alleged facts of 
Christianity, and more occupied with its principles. 
But, in point of fact, as every one knows, the very 
opposite of this is the case. The more nearly we 
approach the age of the apostles, the more do we 
find the believers dwelling amid the feelings and 
hopes inspired by the character, person, and works 
of Christ—by those very things which Dr. Strauss 
says are mere myths; nor is it till we come down 
for some centuries, to a time when philosophy, dis- 
putation, and heresy had tempted or forced men 
into the construction of dogmata, that we perceive 
the principles of the Christian faith holding a place 


of superior interest in the minds of the believers 
8 


114 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


over the facts on which that faith is founded. On 
the evangelical hypothesis, all this admits of easy 
and natural explanation, but what explanation can 
be given of it on the hypothesis that the narrations 
of the Gospel are myths, springing out of the gen- 
eral diffusion of Christianity as a religion of prin- 
ciples, I cannot conceive. 

From these remarks it follows that the supposition 
that these so-called myths arose out of the propaga- 
tion of the religion of Jesus is untenable. There 
remains but the supposition that the religion arose 
out of the myths—a supposition which Dr. Strauss 
would at once, I conclude, reject, as opposed alike 
to analogy, and to the whole tenor of his own sys- 
tem. What remains, then, but to conclude, on Dr. 
Strauss’s hypothesis, that Christianity arose some- 
how, and that however it may have arisen, it rapidly 
spread, but that its true origin is veiled in mystery, 
—the only supposition consistent with the mythic 
hypothesis being that it begot itself? 

4, Dr. Strauss’s theory that the events recorded 
in the Gospels connected with our Lord’s life, death, 
resurrection, and ascension, are mere myths, is 
utterly incompatible with the prominence assigned 
to these events in the preaching and institutions of 
the apostolic age. Of nothing concerning that age 
are we more sure than of the fact that to publish 
the narrative of these events was the great object of 
the preaching of the apostles, and that the commem- 
oration of these events was the end of some, at least, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 115 


of the few ceremonial institutions which they en- 
joined upon the believers. Who does not know, for 
instance, that to preach “ Christ and him crucified ” 
among men, was the grand object to which Paul 
devoted his life? or who needs to be told that 
wherever this devoted man delivered his message, 
the themes on which he chiefly dilated were the 
death and resurrection of Jesus? We have the un- 
impeachable evidence of Luke, in the Acts, to the 
fact that this was what he preached at Athens, and 
we have his own authority for saying that it was 
this which he declared, first of all, at Corinth. Now, 
when he preached to men of the death and resurrec- 
tion of Christ, what did he announce? Did he do 
nothing more than affirm the naked fact that his 
Master had died by violence, and add to this that a 
belief had got up among his followers, no one knew 
how, that he had arisen from the dead, and was 
gone up to heaven? No one can suppose this; for 
by such a meager and supposititious tale as this, 
nothing but derision and contempt was to be gained 
by one who attempted to found on it a new religion. 
We must suppose that when Paul preached Christ’s 
death and resurrection, he preached these under the 
same aspect under which the evangelists present 
them—. ¢., a supernatural and miraculous aspect, 
and in connexion with those great spiritual results 
to man, which the apostle himself, in several of his 
undisputed writings, has ascribed to them; in other 
words, he preached these events in that form and 


116 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


guise which Dr. Strauss stigmatizes as mythical. 
Now, either these events really did occur as Paul 
thus preached them, or they did not. If they did 
not, how came Paul to say they did? Had the 
myth by this time been formed, and did Paul be- 
lieve it? And was he so simple and so ignorant of 
mankind as to carry a new-formed myth, like this, 
among the philosophers of Athens, and the free- 
thinking traders of Corinth, who had long before 
learned to laugh at their own myths, venerable as 
these were from their antiquity and the patriotic 
associations with which they were linked? No sane 
man can suppose this. Did Paul, then, knowingly 
go about the world preaching a fable? Such is the 
only supposition remaining, if we reject the histori- 
cal truth of the Gospel narratives. But it is a sup- 
position so contrary to all the laws which regulate 
human action, that no sound-minded reasoner will 
resort to it for a moment; and it is one which Dr. 
Strauss himself repudiates. What, then, remains, 
but the other side of the alternative—viz., that these 
events, as preached by Paul, truly happened, as he 
affirmed they did? in which case Dr. Strauss’s hy- 
pothesis of myths falls to the ground. 

I have spoken of these events of our Lord’s per- 
sonal history, narrated in the evangelists, as having 
been embodied in commemorative institutions. I 
allude, of course, to the Christian Sabbath and the 
Lord’s Supper—the former commemorative of the 
resurrection, the latter of the death of Christ. Now, 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 117 


these institutions are as old as Christianity itself; we 
read of the one as early as we do of the other; they 
never seem to have existed without each other. All, 
then, we need ask here is, do men appoint institu- 
tions to commemorate an event which, at the time 
they are appointed, is not believed to have hap- 
pened? The answer to this must be in the nega- 
tive ; for, though men may conimemorate a fictitious 
event, believing it to have really occurred, it is mani- 
festly absurd to suppose that they will agree to com- 
memorate by a solemn rite what they do not believe 
to have taken place. Were, then, the death of 
Christ, and the resurrection of Christ, events so 
firmly believed by the Christians from the begin- | 
ning of Christianity, that they agreed to commem- 
orate them by solemn institutes, devoted to that 
special end? If so, it follows that these events can- 
not be mythic even on Dr. Strauss’s own showing ; 
for a myth, according to him, arises in the minds 
of a community only as the tardy result of long fa- 
miliarity with certain ideas which it is designed to 
embody or express. It is, besides, preposterous to 
suppose that, from the very beginning of Chris- 
tianity, such firm faith in the resurrection of Christ 
could have pervaded the community of his fol- 
lowers, or such mysterious importance come to be 
attached by them to his death as is manifested by 
the existence of these ordinances, had it not been 
that both were known to be facts, and that the latter 
was recognised in all its supernatural importance. 


118 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


5. The supposition that the Gospel narratives are 
myths, is utterly irreconcilable with the known 
characters and conduct of the early disciples. It is 
indisputable that many of them were persons of the 
greatest intelligence—that many were persons of 
property and cultivation—that all of them were 
persons of the utmost sincerity, as was proved by 
the ‘privations to which they submitted, and the 
persecutions they braved, from their attachment to 
the cause of Christ. Now, all these persons heartily 
believed the Gospel history. It was not some spec- 
ulative system of religious belief which they em- 
braced, and suffered for; it was Christ, in his per- 
son, his character, and his work—Christ humbling 
himself to become man—Christ dying for man— 
Christ rising and reigning, and interceding in heaven 
for man; it was this which filled the thoughts and 
inspired the hearts of the early believers. What 
they then relinquished their old faith for, what they 
placed before them as the most excellent of all 
knowledge, what they were willing to suffer and 
die for, were exactly those parts of Christianity 
which Dr. Strauss says are mere myths. Is this 
credible? Is it possible? Is it usual for men to 
show such deep devotion to mythic religions ? 
Would any Greek have given up old opinions, and 
forsaken friends, and property, and prospects, as 
Paul did, for the sake of embracing, at the risk of 
all that man holds dear on earth, some new version 
of the flaying of Marsyas by Apollo, or the tossing 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 119 


of Vulcan out of Olympus? On the hypothesis of 
Dr. Strauss, the conduct of such men as Paul and 
Stephen is utterly unaccountable. Almost, we might 
_ say altogether, cotemporary with our Lord, they 
could not but know that his miracles, and deat) 
and resurrection, and ascension were mere fables if 
they were not actual facts; and yet, for these fables 
the one suffered martyrdom, and the other endured 
the loss of all things, and gave himself up to a lite 
of ceaseless toil; and peril, and suffering, which he 
too, probably, closed by a martyr’s death. Were 
these men mad? Was Paul a crazy enthusiast? 
Was Stephen a blind fanatic? If they were not, 
how does Dr. Strauss account for their conduct on 
his hypothesis? How does he account for the con- 
duct of thousands who were partakers of like faith 
with them, and who gave equal evidence of their 
intelligence and their sincerity? Hegelianism must 
read human nature strangely backward if its vota- 
ries believe that men of common sense are prompt 
to suffer and to die for a popular myth—the mere 
shadow of a shade. 

6. Dr. Strauss’s hypothesis is continually landing 
him in the most glaring inconsistencies and paral- 
ogisms. In the course of expounding and defend- . 
ing it, he again and again begs the question, or 
contradicts in one place what he has affirmed in 
another. Thus (to give an instance or two) he sets 
out with the denial of the authenticity of the Gos- 
pels, and yet repeatedly, when it serves his purpose, 


120 CHRIST AND UHRISTIANITY. 


appeals to them as authentic sources of informa- 
tion. Nay, so far has he carried this inconsistency, 
that in one part of his work he attempts to deter- 
mine how much authentic matter there may be in 
John’s Gospel, by the amount of agreement be- 
tween that Gospel and “the synoptical Gospels.”’* 
Of course this assumes the authenticity of these 
Gospels; for a work not itself authentic can be no 
standard of the authenticity of another. 

Again, when Dr. Strauss would instruct us how 
it came to pass that the early disciples of Christ in- 
vented and received so many miraculous stories con- 
cerning him, he tells us that they were bent upon 
“ glorifying” their Master. Let us, then, ask him 
how he knows that they were bent on glorifying 
their Master? His answer is, “Look at the stories 
they have invented and received concerning him.” 
Such is the battledore-and-shuttlecock fashion after 
which Dr. Strauss plies his reasonings. 

Once more: it is essential to Dr. Strauss’s mythic 
hypothesis to assert that the people among whom 
these myths arose were in a state of almost childish 
simplicity, in which the exercise of the reasoning 
powers was almost unknown, and a credulous imagi- 
nation held supreme sway over the mind. But when 
one comes to listen to Dr. Strauss’s exposition of the 
deep philosophy—too deep, we confess, for us to un- 
derstand—involved in these myths, one cannot suf- 
ficiently marvel at the profound thought and far- 

* Vol. ii, p. 187. Eng. Trans. 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 9 


searching analysis of these simple-minded children 
of an unhistoric age. According to Dr. Strauss it 
is no vulgar, no shallow science that constitutes 
“the absolute sense of Christology.” If we may 
believe him, “the main element of that idea [of 
humanity embodied in the Gospels] is, that the 
negation of the merely natural and sensual life, 
which is itself the negation of the spirit (the nega- 
tion of a negation therefore) is the sole way to the 
true spiritual life;” and again he tells us that “hu- 
manity is the union of the two natures—God be- 
come man, the infinite manifesting itself in the 
finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infini- 
tude; it is the child of the visible mother and the 
invisible Father, nature and spirit,” &c.* And is 
it indeed true that through this “ palpable obscure ”- 
- of speculation these simple-minded children of an 
all-believing uncritical age walked with a firm step 
and an open eye? Is it indeed true that the deep 
philosophy of Hegel was embodied by the early 
Christians in their conception of Jesus? Was Teu- 
tonic science anticipated by childish simplicity ? 
If so, we are forced upon one of two conclusions: 
Either the early Christians were not such credulous 
children as Dr. Strauss represents them; or, Teu- 
tonic philosophy is but a child’s dream after all. 
There is another thing in Dr, Strauss’s hypothesis 
utterly irreconcilable with that state of primitive 
credulousness in which it is essential to his whole 
* Vol. iii, p. 438, 


122 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


theory of a mythic origin for the Gospels, that we 
should believe the early Christians to have existed. 
It is the exceedingly artificial and elaborate char- 
acter which, by his own showing, belongs to those 
so-called myths. When we peruse the analysis he 
gives of the different Gospel narratives, we cannot 
but wonder at the exceeding patience and ingenuity 
which must have presided over their formation. 
Let us take, by way of illustration, the first that 
occurs in his book—the annunciation and birth of 
the Baptist. According to Strauss, this was got up 
in the following way. An individual had in his 
mind a compound image blended from scattered 
traits respecting the late birth of distinguished in- 
dividuals as recorded in the Old Testament. He 
thought of Isaac, whose parents were advanced in 
their days when they were promised a son, and this ° 
suggested that John’s parents should be the same. 
He remembered how doubtingly Abraham asked, 
when God promised him a seed which should inherit 
Canaan, “ How shall I know that I shall inherit it ?” 
and hence he made Zecharias ask, ““ Whereby shall 
I know this ?”—he called to mind that the name of 
Aaron’s wife was, according to the LX X., Elizabeth, 
and this suggested a name for John’s mother. Then 
he bethought him of Samson’s birth being annouyced 
by an angel, and accordingly he provided an angel 
to announce that of John also—he glanced at pop- 
ular Jewish notions regarding angels visiting the 
priests in the temple, and thence obtained a locality 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 128 


for the angelic apparition to Zacharias—he got back 
next to Samson, and from his history supplied the 
instructions which the angel gives respecting John’s 
Nazaritic education, as well as the blessings which 
it was predicted that John’s birth would confer upon 
his country—he next went to the history of Samuel, 
and borrowed thence the idea of the lyric effusion 
_uttered by Zacharias on the occasion of his son’s cir- 
cumcision—he then fixed upon a significant name 
for the prophet, calling him John, after the precedent 
of Israel and Isaac—the command to Isaiah to write 
the name of his son, Mahershalal-hash-baz, upon a 
tablet, recalled to him the necessity of providing 
Zacharias also with something of the same sort; and 
as for the dumbness of the priest, it was suggested 
by the fact that the Hebrews believed that when 
. any man saw a divine vision, he usually lost for a 
time one of his senses. ‘ So,” exclaims Dr. Strauss, 
after a long enumeration of all these particulars, 
“we stand here upon purely mythical-poetical 
ground!” Indeed! then must the people of that 
mythical-poetical age have been deeply versed in 
all those artifices of composition, by which in these 
later times men of defective powers of fancy con- 
tinue to construct stories by picking and stealing 
odds and ends of adventure from those who have 
written before them. No hero of the scissors-and- 
paste school ever went more unscrupulously to 
work than did this unknown composer of the story 
of John’ birth. And, after all, he made it look so 


124 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


natural and so apparently original, that it required 
a German philosopher of the nineteenth century to 
find out for the first time, that it was a mere piece 
of Mosaic from bits of the antique—a “mere thing 
of shreds and patches!” I blush for the degeneracy 
oftheage. The most practised of booksellers’ hacks 
now-a-days is far, very far behind this skilful literary 
man of a mythical-poetical age. 

Such are some of the logical inconsistencies into 
which Dr. Strauss is betrayed by his theory. I 
adduce them not as against him, but as against it. 
They are not the slips of a careless or inconsistent 
reasoner ; they are the errors into which a man of 
much acuteness and dexterity has been led by having 
a false theory to defend. 

7. The admission made by Dr. Strauss—that 
Jesus was a rabbi who actually lived and taught in 
Judea—is fatal to his whole doctrine of myths as 
applied to the Gospel narrative. We may hold it 
to be a condition of a myth that the subject of it 
is himself a mere idea. A man who has actually 
lived may become the subject of fables and romances; 
he never becomes the subject of a myth; the mere 
fact that he was known to live as a man among men 
forbids this. Jupiter, Apollo, Bacchus, Brumha, and 
the other deities of genuine mythology, have all been 
the subjects of myths, for they were themselves each 
a myth; in the language of the apostle, they are 
‘nothing in the world.” Of Mohammed, Zoroaster, 
Confucius, we have many fables, but no mths; for 


GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 125 


these were real men, and left upon the consciousness 
of their fellow-men a sense of their reality, which 
put them altogether out of the mythic sphere. Now, 
by Dr. Strauss’s own admission, it is to the class of 
the latter and not to the former that Jesus belongs. 
He was a man who led an actual life upon earth. 
Until, then, Dr. Strauss can show any case in which 
an historical man has become the subject of a myth, 
I must hold him bound either to admit the credi- 
bility of the Gospel history, or to take the ground 
which when he wrote this book he described as un- 
tenable, that the greater part of that history is a pure 
fable or romance.* 

I might add other reasons to these for rejecting 
this theory of the mythic origin of our canonical 
Gospels. But itis unnecessary. What I have ad- 
vanced is sufficient, I believe, to show the utter 
groundlessness and folly of such an opinion. After 
having looked at it on all sides, I can regard it in 
no other light than as a mere phantasy—the cre- 
ation of men of ingepuity and learning, but whose 


*T marvel to find a man like Mr. Grote so egregiously departing 
from the true idea of a myth, as to adduce Goethe’s story about 
Lord Byron and the Florentine tragedy as “a mythus about Lord 
Byron.”’ It was neither more nor less than a piece of clever fic- 
tion, which Goethe no doubt knew to be such, and which the rest 
of the world received as true simply because they had no means of 
contradicting it. The moment it came before the view of one who 
knew Byron’s history, it was, as Mr. Grote says, ‘‘ contemptuously 
blotted out.” If such things as this are to be called myths, there 
is an end of all scientific reasoning on the subject of mythology. 
We shall be told next that every hoax is a myth. 


126 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


intellects have never been disciplined to the calm 
pondering of evidence, and who have never been 
sufficiently impressed with the sacredness of facts, 
or the absurdity of making such give way to mere 
subjective impressions and abstract reasonings.* 


* « Strauss, the Hegelian theologian, sees in Christianity only a 
mythus. Naturally: for his Hegelian ‘Idea,’ itself a myth, and 
confessedly finding itself in everything, of course finds in every- 
thing a myth; ‘Chimera chimeram parit.’””—Sir W. Hamilton, 
Discussions in Philosophy and Literature, &., p. 787, 2nd edit. 
Hegelianism is a bold but phantasmal attempt to evolve the All 
out of Nothing. Its aim is (as one of its ablest professors once 
expressed it to myself) to construct a philosophical system by a 
purely logical process, without taking heed of any fact in the uni- 
verse, which, when constructed, shall explain every fact in the 
universe. Of such a scheme, may we not say with Romeo,— 


“QO anything of nothing first create ! 
O heavy lightness! serious vanity! 
Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms ?” 


eNO A RR enmeeeaes :8 28 OSes aS 0 SS a eC ec lw re ae elas ss = eee eee 


PART “EL. 


PROOF FROM CERTAIN FACTS RECORDED IN THE 
GOSPELS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS DIVINE. 


BARR RRR RA re 8 2 1 8 Oe Oey er e_ E ”_ 08 OOOOwreeeeeee5er~erer—n— nn Orr 


. 


Consequetur omnium librorum summa peryersio, et omnium, qui 
memorie mandati sunt, librorum abolitio, si quod tanta populorum 
religione roboratum est, tanta hominum et temporum consensione 
firmatum, in hance dubitationem inducitur, ut ne histori quidem vul- 
garis fidem possit gravitatemque obtinere. 


Avuaustinus, De Mor. Ecel. Cath., c. 29, § 60. 


Omnis homo mendax. Solus autem Christus, Deus et homo, nun- 
quam repertus est, nec reperietur, mendax ; nec verba ejus mutabuntur 
aut deficient; qui solus expers mendacii et erroris oracula nungquam 
invitanda protulit. 


be Corn. Acrippa, De Van. Scient., c. 99. 


PAs eb, 


CHAPTER I. 


ARGUMENT FROM THE PERSONAL CHARACTER OF JESUS 
CHRIST AS PRESENTED BY THE EVANGELISTS. 


In recording the transactions of our Lord’s life 
upon earth, the evangelists have unconsciously de- 
lineated his character. I say unconsciously, because 
in none of them do we find any formal attempt to 
set forth articulately those features of mind and con- 
duct by which he was distinguished. His biog- 
raphers content themselves with simply narrating 
what he said and did and suffered, without making 
any pretensions to sit in judgment upon his pro- 
cedure, or to guide their readers to the estimate 
which ought to be formed of his personal excellen- 
ces and merits. They leave the facts they narrate 
to speak for themselves, scrupulously, and, as per- 
haps no other historians ever did, restricting them- 
selves to the position of mere witnesses who have no 
call to pronounce opinions, but whose sole business 
it is to narrate what they have seen and heard. In 


the narrative they have given, however, they have 
‘ 9 


130 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


placed their Master in lights which bring out with 
great distinctness not only the leading: outlines, but 
the minuter features of his character. Their ac- 
count of him, when carefully perused, leaves a pic- 
ture of him upon the mind, all the parts of which 
are firmly drawn and harmoniously coloured. We 
can have no hesitation in arriving at a very definite 
conclusion as to what he was from the careful con- 
sideration of what they tell us he said and did. 

It is no part of my present design to attempt a 
detailed analysis of the separate features which go 
to make up this picture. To attempt this would 
lead me into too wide a field for my present pur- 
pose ; nor is it at all necessary for the prosecution of 
the argument I have itin view to erect upon our Lord’s 
character as suggested by the accounts of the evange- 
lists. It will be enough for that end that I briefly 
remind the reader of certain general peculiarities 
which come out very broadly as marking that charac- 
ter, and which go to distinguish it from the characters 
of all other men, as the single specimen of its kind. 

Now, in contemplating the character of our Lord, 
as that comes out from the narrative of his earthly 
history, it cannot fail to strike every one that it is 
absolutely faultless. His historians nowhere say that 
his character was faultless; but they never place 
him in an attitude in which we can detect a single 
flaw in his mental or moral development. We see 
him, in the course of their narrative, under a great 
variety of aspects and in many different lights; but 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 131 


the picture is alike perfect in each. Sometimes he 
is presented to us in private, surrounded by those 
whom he loved and who loved him, and in whose 
cherished society he could give free scope to all the 
warmer and tenderer emotions of his soul. At other 
times we see him in public, now waited on by won-- 
dering crowds who “were very attentive to hear 
him,” now exposed to the crafty assaults of bitter 
and spiteful adversaries, who sought “to entangle 
him in his talk.” At one time he is shown to us 
amid circumstances of joy and triumph ; at another, 
amid scenes of the deepest humiliation, the severest 
agony, and the most poignant sorrow. We see 
him brought into relation with people of every class 
and character—high and low, rich and poor, young 
and old, learned and ignorant, soldier and priest, 
lawyer and rabbi, prince and peasant, Pharisee and 
Sadducee, the devotee of the temple, the student of 


the schools, the money-changer of the market-place, 


and the harlot of the streets. Never was a life in 
allits phases more faithfully and fairly laid before us. 
And what is the impression which, from the contem- 
plation of him in all these changes of outward cir- 
cumstances and relations, is left upon the mind of 
the geader as to his character? Is it not by uni- 
versal consent this, that here is One who is absolutely 
superior to circumstances—One on whose serene and 
lofty spirit the changes that affect sublunary in- 
terests can produce no permanent or injurious im- 
pressions—One for whom his friends never had to 


132 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


make any apology, for whom the impartial critic 
needs not to demand any forbearance, in whom the 
keenest-sighted of his enemies can find no fault—One 
whom no transient weakness from within, no cunning 
temptation or frowning terror from without, could 
divert for a single moment from his onward career of 
virtue, beneficence, and purity—One, in short, who, 
tried by the loftiest standard of spiritual excellence, 
must be pronounced, in the language of a disciple 
who had seen as much of him as any man while he 
was on earth, “without blemish and without spot?” 
1 Pet. i, 19. In this judgment all impartial minds 
have concurred. The first teachers of Christianity, 
wherever they went, proclaimed that “he had no 
sin, neither was guile found in his mouth;” an as- 
sertion which they, as teachers of a system at the 
basis of which lies the doctrine of the universal 
depravity and guilt of the race, would have been 
the last to make, had they not been cogently assured 
of the truth of it. To Him the regards of all who 
have mourned over the imperfections of our race, 
and longed for its recovery, have been directed as 
the one unsullied embodiment of that excellence for 
which they long—the one model and type of “the 
perfect man.” And even in cases where there, has 
been no disposition to receive his religion as divine, 
homage has been rendered to his character, as that 
of the only being of our race in whose conduct there 
can be discovered no flaw or weakness. 

Freedom from fault, however, is rather a negative 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 133 


than a positive excellence ; and it is possible to con- 
ceive a character on which this verdict must be 
pronounced, which yet shall fail to command our 
love or veneration from the absence of positive and 
striking virtues. In order, therefore, to do justice 
to the character of our Lord, we must observe that 
its excellence is no less positive than negative—that 
it is distinguished alike by the absence of all defects, 
and by the presence and combination of all virtues. 
A character on which such a verdict may be justly 
pronounced is one which must stand by itself among 
the characters of men. And herein lies the perfect 
originality and the great peculiarity of the character 
of Jesus Christ. A character uniting in itself all 
positive excellences, without any drawback arising 
from weakness or sinfulness, is what we are never 
permitted to see, and what the experience of our 
race forbids us to hope to see in the ordinary course 
of humanity. The limits of human endowment and 
attainment are such that the virtues which we ob- 
serve in separate individuals are never all combined 
in the same individual. So much, indeed, is this 
the case, that it rarely happens that we find a char- 
acter among men distinguished preéminently for 
more than one excellence. In the most illustrious 
specimens of our race we can always come to a point 
where excellence terminates and failing begins. Not 
an instance occurs in which we do not find that 
something is lacking which a perfectly good and 
great man ought to possess. Ifthe mind be of the 


134 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


robuster order, how often is it deficient in the gentler 
and more lovely features of mental development! 
or if there be a profusion of the more graceful and 
attractive virtues, how often have we to deplore the 
absence of firmness and vigorous attachment to 
principle! The man of ardent temperament is oft- 
en rash, inconsiderate, and foolish; while the man 
of cool judgment and acute intelligence is often cal- 
lous, sometimes selfish and calculating, not unfre- 
quently cunning ormean. The dignity which would 
make some characters venerable becomes oftentimes, 
from the want of needful gentleness, the occasion 
of their being disliked or feared. The meekness 
and gentleness which would make some characters 
amiable, not seldom, from the want of counterbal- 
ancing dignity, only render them pitiable. Every- 
where we find some lack in the characters of men. 
The yearnings of the soul after perfection can find 
no object in the actual world of men on which to 
rest. If we can but find men there who are good 
upon the whole, we must count ourselves happy. A 
man, whose excellences fairly balance his defects, is 
as near an approximation to the fair ideal of char- 
acter as in our present condition we can legitimately 
expect to see. 

This imperfection of man is to be traced to that 
depravity which is the consequence of our fallen 
condition, and which operates in various ways and 
with different degrees of force in different indi- 
viduals. Apart from this, there seems no reason 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 135 


why one man should not, in kind at least, be as 
good as another, whatever differences there might 
be in degree among men. The good qualities which 
we see in one man might surely be reproduced in 
another; and there can be no reason why they are 
not universally exhibited, but that there is a flaw 
in our nature which forbids perfection here below. 
But when Jesus Christ appeared in our world, hu- 
manity was in him allied to no element of evil— 
touched with no shade or spot of depravity; and 
hence in him there was nothing to prevent the 
fullest combination of all moral as well as all intel- 
lectual excellences. Holy from the womb, in the 
congenial soil of his heart all virtues sprang up and 
grew spontaneously. At this stage of our argu- 
ment, however, we are not entitled to lay any stress 
upon the source or cause of his perfection. I but 
notice it in passing as an august reality which com- 
mands my reverence. That to which my argument 
more strictly confines me is, the simple fact itself 
that in the character of Christ there is a display of 
every excellence. The more closely we study it, 
the more shall we be struck with this. It is not 
the presence of one or two great qualities that com- 
mands our reverence; it is the extraordinary com- 
bination of excellences which it displays that consti- 
tutes its peculiar attraction. Meekness and majesty 
_firmness and gentleness—zeal and prudence— 
composure and warmth—patience and sensibility— 
submissiveness and dignity—sublime sanctity and 


136 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


tender sympathy—piety that rose to the loftiest de- 
votion, and benevolence that could stoop to the 
meanest sufferer—intense abhorrence of sin, and 
profound compassion for the sinner, mingle their 
varied rays in the tissue of our Saviour’s character, 
and produce a combination of virtues such as the 
world never saw besides, and such as the most san- 
guine enthusiasm never ventured to anticipate. We 
behold him, when only twelve years of age, aston- 
ishing the doctors of his nation by the precocity of 
his intelligence and the extent of his knowledge, 
yet, at the first summons, turning away from the 
flattering murmurs of their applause, to yield obe- 
dience to his unlettered mother, and to share the 
toils and the penury of her humble home. We see 
him at a later period, after he had been manifested 
to Israel, and had entered upon his career of public 
activity as a teacher sent from God, continually en- 
gaged in methods of beneficence, cheerfully de- 
scending to the humblest offices of kindness, listen- 
ing to every cry for pity that was addressed to him, 
having patience with the dulness of his disciples, 
and teaching them “as they were able to bear it ;” 
while, at the same time, with all the dignity of a 
heaven-sent messenger, he was reproving the vices 
of those in high places, exposing the sophistries of 
those who were misleading the people, and making 
his most acute and able antagonists feel, that against 
him all their ingenuity and all their resources were 
utterly impotent and useless. We see him also dur- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 137 


ing the trying scenes which preceded his crucifixion, 
when he appeared as a criminal at the bar of the 
high-priest and of Pilate, never losing his dignity, 
never parting with his composure—majestic amid 
reproaches—calm under injuries—with the port of 
a sovereign and the serenity of a martyr—meeting 
every assault of his enemies without flinching and 
without retaliation—and uniting with a fortitude 
that astonished the stern and haughty Roman, a 
meekness and a tenderness that had all but melted 
that iron heart. In short, view our Lord at any 
stage of his earthly career, and under any of the 
circumstances in which the evangelists have repre- 
sented him, and we see the same completeness of 
character—the same unparalleled combination of 
excellences, the existence of any one of which in an 
ordinary mortal, in the degree in which they all ap- 
pear in Christ, would draw toward him the admira- 
tion of all who knew him. 

Nor is this all. Another thing noticeable in our 
Lord’s character is, that not only was it marked by 
a combination of excellences, but these were so 
combined as to produce a perfect balance or equi- 
poise of character. What the evangelists narrate 
of him leaves upon the mind of the reader the con- 
viction that there was in him not only a complete 
but an harmonious development of moral excellence. 
He had not only all the entireness, he had also all 
the symmetry of virtue. 

This, too, is essential to our conception of a per- 


138 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


fect character. As in a machine, the great aim of 
the constructer is to bring all its parts into a state 
of perfect equilibrium before he applies the motive 
power; so in the mind there should be a state of 
balance among all its faculties and tendencies, else 
it will work irregularly, and, it may be, mischiev- 
ously. For want of this we see many good and 
worthy men not so much respected and not so use- 
ful as they otherwise might be. It is not that vir- 
tues are wanting in their minds, so much as that, 
of those they possess, the one counterworks and 
neutralizes the other, instead of all combining into 
one harmonious organization, and conspiring to one 
grand result. A man may, for instance, be both 
benevolent and just, but these qualities may be so 
ill adjusted in his constitution, that his benevolence 
shall often operate to the injury of justice, and his 
justice shall display itself at the expense of gener- 
osity and kindness. It is amazing how much of an- 
tagonism there is in the characters and conduct of 
men, arising from this cause; and how frequently, 
in consequence, the sum total of a man’s agency, in 
its bearing upon the well-being of the world, resem- 
bles that of a set of algebraic quantities, in which 
for every positive there is an equivalent negative, 
so that the result of the whole is nothing. 

Now, in the character of our Lord, as set before 
us in the Gospels, nothing of this sort is apparent. 
In the wondrous assemblage of excellences which 
his character displays, all are in perfect keeping 


CHARACTER OF OCHRIST. 139 


and harmony with each other. View him in what- 
ever light we please, he is always the same. There 
is nothing too much, nothing too little, about him. 
He is as free from excess of virtue on the one hand, 
as from deficiency of virtue on the other. There is 
no overlapping, no collision, no interference of one 
quality with another. You never need to make al- 
lowances for him. You never require to plead for 
him on the ground that the abundance of one virtue 
compensates for the deficiency of another. In him 
we see all virtue in order and in symmetry. The 
entire machine, intellectual and moral, moves on 
smoothly and equably. It reaches its result not by 
a system of checks and compensations, but by direct 
impulses of its inherent motive power. There is a 
preéminent conviction left upon the mind of the 
soundness, healthiness, and dignity, no less than of 
the completeness of the character thus presented to 
us. It has all the repose and all the harmony of 
incarnate purity. 

These observations might be greatly extended, 
but I have adduced enough to furnish a basis for 
the argument I wish to build upon the character of 
Christ, as unfolded in the narrative of the evan- 
gelists, in favour of the truth of his religion. This 
argument turns upon two propositions; the one of 
which is, that the character of our Lord, as deline- 
ated by the evangelists, must have been real; and 
the other is, that, being real, it gives an incontesta- 
ble voucher for the truth of what he taught. 


140 ' CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


ih 

I have to show that the character of Christ, which 
the evangelists have delineated in their narratives, 
must have been real; in other words, that in order 
to write as they have written of Jesus Christ, they 
must have had before them, in the person and con- 
duct of their Master, actually such an embodiment 
of excellence as they have depicted. 

Now, the alternative here is between admitting 
this, and supposing that the account of our Lord in 
the Gospels is fictitious ; possessing, perhaps, some 
ground-work of fact, but owing its most striking 
features to the genius and skill of the narrators. 
This latter hypothesis, which was not unknown to 
our older English deists, has been recently set forth 
with new attractions by the advocates of infidelity, 
and may be regarded as that by which for the pres- 
ent they seem prepared to stand. It will be our 
business to examine its tenability ; and for this pur- 
pose I shall adhibit no other test than such as is 
furnished by the facts already noticed, viz., that from 
the narrative of these four evangelists emerges the 
embodiment of a character which is without any 
fault, which combines in it all excellences that can 
dignify, adorn, or benefit man, and in which all the 
qualities it displays exist together in perfect har- 
mony, symmetry, and equilibrium. To such a test 
no one can object, for it assumes nothing but simply, 
that the character of Christ given by the evangelists 
is what every one who reads their narratives may 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 141 


see it to be. Assuming this, what I am prepared 
to show is, that these narratives cannot be fictitious, 
but must present the history of a real personage, 
whose character was actually such as they have 
described. 

I observe in the outset, that, whatever be the 
vigour of human genius, there are certain limits 
which it cannot pass, and certain laws by which its 
operations are regulated, just as surely as the events 
of the material universe are regulated by the laws 
of nature. When, therefore, it is affirmed that any 
of these limits of human genius has been surpassed, 
or any of these laws superseded by any human 
being, the case becomes one of mvracle, as truly as 
when any of the laws of the external world is sus- 
pended, and the boundaries of nature’s operation 
are exceeded. Now, this principle I propose to 
apply to the case before us; my purpose being to 
show that if the character of Christ, as given in the 
Gospels, is fictitious, it is such.a fiction as can be 
accounted for, in its production and its publication, 
only by calling in the aid of the supernatural or the 
miraculous. 

Let it be observed, then, in the first place, that 
the hypothesis, that the character of Christ as givem 
in the Gospels is fictitious, involves the assumption 
that those who composed it were bad men. It is 
beyond all doubt that they give forth their narra- 
tives as true history, and in the plainest manner 
affirm all that they say to be fact; and they do this, 


142 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


not as a professed novelist might, merely for the 
sake of amusing the reader, or beguiling him into 
wisdom by 
“Truths severe, in fairy fiction dress’d,” 

but avowedly for the purpose of erecting upon the 
basis thus laid a religious system, the reception of 
which by men cannot but materially affect their 
interests for time and for eternity. In such a case 
it is impossible to regard them in any other light 
than as impostors of the very worst kind, if the 
character they thus delineate, and the occurrences 
they thus narrate, are mere fictions. To men who 
could act such a part, all forms of deceit and dis- 
honesty must have been congenial. To such an 
extent must selfishness have predominated within 
them, that if they could but have gained their end, 
whatever that may be supposed to have been, they 
were ready to tamper with the most sacred interests, 
and the most awful destinies of themselves and 
others. Nay, tosuch a height must their unscru- 
pulous audacity have proceeded, that they hesitated 
not to bring in the Almighty as an accomplice in 
their scheme, and to use his terrible name to give 
greater authority to their deception. Such were the 
evangelists and apostles of Christ, on the supposi- 
tion that the history of our Lord, as they have re- 
corded it, is fictitious! Now, it may be fairly put 
to the common sense of any one at all familiar with 
the laws and operations of the human mind, whether 
it be in the nature of things conceivable or possible 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 143 


that men of such depraved minds could have con- 
-eeived, and drawn out, and sustained a character 
such as that given by them to our Lord. Is it 
credible that men of wicked and disordered minds 
could have delineated a character of such perfect 
excellence and such entire symmetry? Would 
there have been no indications, in the course of the 
lengthened narrative, that the character depicted 
was one in which the writer had no real compla- 
cency, with which he had no sincere sympathy, for 
which he felt no genuine admiration? Is it not a 
fact that no man has ever yet attempted to draw a 
model character without introducing a large portion 
of himself into the picture; so that the most elabo- 
rate creations of the poets are continually recalling 
to the reader the peculiar idiosyncrasies, tendencies, 
and pursuits of the author? It is only natural it 
should be so. The features which a man throws 
into such a picture are insensibly those on which his 
own mind rests with most complacency, and with 
which he is accustomed to associate most vividly 
his conceptions of enjoyment. We might without 
hesitation go further, and say that it is impossible 
for any man to sustain, through a shifting and 
lengthened fictitious narrative, a model character 
with which he has no sympathy in his own soul. 
When, then, the evangelists are affirmed to have 
done this; when it is said that they, being men of 
selfish, dishonest, and corrupted minds, have been 
able to conceive and ‘construct a narrative which 


144 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


unfolds a character in every respect the opposite of 
their own; and when, more than all this, they 
being persons of disordered moral perception and 
ill-regulated minds, are affirmed to have drawn 
from their own imaginations alone a character 
which, through the varied scenery of a changeful 
life,.presents one unsullied aspect of perfection, 
harmony, and equipoise; the demand made upon 
us is such, that all we know of the laws and the 
limits of human ingenuity constrains us to say, that 
only on the supposition that these men wrote under 
superhuman aid, could we be justified in yielding 
to it our assent. 

A second consideration which enhances the diffi- 
culty of the infidel hypothesis in this case is, that 
the character of Jesus Christ,as given by the evan- 
gelists, instead of being an assemblage of such vir- 
tues as were held most in repute among the men 
of their day, is absolutely original, and calculated 
rather to condemn than to illustrate the prevalent 
notions of the community of which they formed a 
part, concerning a perfect character. It is observa- 
ble in the literature of every country, that the hero 
of a contemporary tale is always made to concentrate 
on himself more or less fully the features which, to 
the men who lived when the author wrote, appeared 
the most attractive. Hence works of fiction, of this 
class, have come to possess an historical value, as 
unconscious but faithful witnesses of the manners, 
the opinions, the prejudices, and general character 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 145 


of society at the time and place of their production. 
But if the narratives of our Lord’s history in the 
evangelists be fiction, they present the hitherto un- 
paralleled peculiarity of being written among a 
people of a strongly marked character, and by men 
who shared in the general character of their coun- 
trymen, while the person whose history they record, 
is represented as broadly diverging in all the great 
leading points of his character from the standard 
most in repute among his countrymen and contem- 
poraries. The evangelists were Jews, and were 
subject to all the prejudices of Jews. They had 
been educated to regard the rigid observance of the 
Mosaic ritual as the highest of all virtues. They 
had been taught to look upon the religious zeal of 
the Pharisees with reverence, as the noblest form 
of piety. They expected a Messiah who was to ap- 
pear with great pomp and power, to establish a 
temporal dominion on the earth, of which Jerusa- 
lem was to be the centre. They had been trained 
in a morality which taught that it was praiseworthy 
to hate their enemies as cordially as they loved their 
friends. Their own nation they had been accus- 
tomed to think of as alone worthy of the divine 
favour, and on all others they looked with contempt 
or aversion. Such were the men in their native 
original character, and in this they but shared with 
the rest of their people. And yet these men, in 
presenting the history of One whom they evidently 


wish the world to love and honour, have presented 
10 


146. CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


to us a character which continually condemns them- 
selves and their nation. They have placed before 
us a Jew who taught that the observance of the 
Mosaic ritual was worthless unless accompanied 
with the devotion of the Spirit; who spoke of it as 
soon to be superseded by a system of spiritual wor- 
ship; who inculcated love to man as man, whether 
Jew or Gentile; who, claiming to be the promised 
Messiah, repudiated all ideas of temporal power and 
glory; who announced the equality of all people in 
the sight of God; who fearlessly exposed the false 
grounds on which the reputation of the Pharisees 
rested; and who went so continnally and decidedly 
athwart the current of national feeling and preju- 
dice in Judea, that at last the people and their rulers 
could endure it no longer, but rose against him and 
clamoured for his death. If we admit that our 
Lord’s history is real, all this receives, of course, a 
sufficient explanation; for the evangelists, as faith- 
ful chroniclers, found no difficulty in producing this 
perfectly original portrait, because they had before 
them the actual living personage to whom it be- 
longs. But if we suppose their narrative fictitious, 
it brings before us a literary phenomenon for which 
it will not be possible to account. How could it 
oceur to the evangelists to conceive such a charac- 
ter? What could have suggested the idea of it to 
their minds? What was there in the society in the 
midst of which they lived to furnish materials for 
such a picture? By what marvellous efforts of ge- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 147 


nius could men, educated as they had been, invent 
the incidents by which, with such consummate skill 
and naiveté, they have developed so grand and so 
original a conception ? Unquestionably, if they 
were mere inventers in this case, they have achieved 
what no genius, either in ancient or modern times, 
besides has been able to accomplish. 

But as yet I have only understated the case. 
Supposing it possible that one man of transcendent 
genius had been able to rise above the prejudices 
and opinions of his nation, though himself destitute 
of any outward training but what was calculated to 
deepen the hold of these upon his mind; and though 
himself a selfish and unprincipled man, to conceive 
and delineate in action a character of perfect purity, 
harmony, and beauty—how are we to account for 
four such men doing this, and not only so, but all 
presenting us with substantially the same picture ? 
If it be in a high degree improbable that one man, 
in the circumstances of the evangelists, should pro- 
duce such a piece of art, does not the improbability 
become almost infinite that four men should suc- 
ceed in doing this? And when we find that these 
four men have not only each produced his picture, 
but that all the four pictures substantially agree, 
does not the supposition of their narratives being 
fictitious become absolutely impossible, and the 
very idea of it ridiculous? Let the experiment be 
tried; let any four of the best men and greatest 
geniuses of our day be selected; and let them be 


148 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


requested to write each a fictitious narrative with a | 
view of delineating a perfect character; and can any 
one doubt what would be the result? Is it not cer- 
tain, not only that the incidents introduced by them 
would be totally different, but that the chances 
would be as infinity to one against their falling 
upon the same general conception of the character 
they wished to illustrate? In all ordinary cases 
such a concurrence between four historians who 
plainly wrote independently of each other, and for 
a different class of readers in the first instance, 
would carry with it irresistible evidence of the 
reality of what they, as profes8ed eye-witnesses, re- 
corded. Suppose we saw four paintings professing 
to be portraits of the same person by artists whose 
different style and execution evidently showed that 
they had worked independently of each other, and 
that in these four pictures the same likeness was 
presented; could we for a moment doubt that all 
the painters had had the same living original before 
them? or, would any person be listened to, who, in 
the face of this concurrence, should insist that all 
the four were but studies from imagination? Not 
less unreasonable and absurd is it to doubt the 
veracity of portraits drawn by the pen, when, on 
comparing several, the productions of separate art- 
ists, we find the likeness in all agreeing. On what, 
indeed, is it that we proceed in the most solemn de- 
cisions which we form on human character and con- 
duct, but on the concurrence of competent witnesses? 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 149 


Is it not upon this, that the character, the hopes, the 
life of the accused is staked, on the occasion of 
every criminal trial? And do we not, in all such 
cases, proceed with the most perfect confidence, on 
the ground that the concurrent testimony of several 
independent witnesses is a fact which can be ac- 
counted for only on the supposition that what they 
concur in attesting actually did take place? Every 
one feels that such a concurrence, in a case where 
each witness drew his materials from his own imagi- 
nation, would be a departure from ordinary natural 
laws, for which only the supposition of supernatural 
agency could account. 

Up to this point I have argued against the hy- 
pothesis that these narratives are fictitious, from 
the serious difficulties which the authorship of the 
books lays in the way of such an hypothesis. But 
not less serious are the difficulties which assail that 
hypothesis from the fact of their publication. It is 
to be borne in mind that these delineations of our 
Saviour’s life and conduct were sent forth during 
the lifetime of many who had seen, and heard, and 
known him while he lived in Judea. If, then, they 
be fictions, they are fictions which their authors had 
the audacity to publish while multitudes were still 
alive who could expose the deception, and who had 
every reason to make public that exposure; and not 
only did they dare to do this, but they did it with 
such success, that in the very places where Jesus 
must have been best known, they succeeded in get- 


150 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


ting great numbers to risk all worldly advantages 
by embracing the religion built upon their story! 
Is this, I ask, credible? is it possible? 

If we look deliberately at the circumstances of 
the case, we can hardly fail to be shut up to the 
conclusion that a narrative of this kind, so received, 
must be true. A great Teacher appears in Judea, 
in the middle of the most enlightened epoch of the 
ancient world. He has intercourse with the people 
in various ways for thirty-three years, during the 
last three of which he is continually in public, teach- 
ing in all their towns and villages, and attracting 
the utmost public attention. He at length brings 
down on him the wrath of the rulers of the nation, 
who ultimately, by unrighteous means, compass his 
death. A few weeks after this event, his followers 
boldly assert, not only his innocence of the crimes 
laid to his charge, but his absolute immunity from 
all evil and failure. They hold him up to the world 
as a pattern of unblemished holiness. They charge 
hig enemies with having wickedly “slain the Holy 
One and the Just.” They persist in this declara- 
tion to the end of their lives, and write it down in 
books which they submit to the scrutiny of their 
and his contemporaries. What is the result? Are 
they branded as impostors, and is their testimony 
by universal consent repudiated as false? On the 
contrary, they have the satisfaction of finding that 
no man ventures to question the truth of their delin- 
eation, and that myriads, both of their own coun- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 151 


trymen and others, receiving their testimony, yield 
homage to the Master whose sayings and doings 
they record. This is a fact, and it has to be ac- 
counted for. Now there are only two ways in which 
it cam be accounted for: either the account given 
by the evangelists is true, and therefore credible ; 
or some supernatural delusion must have been pro- 
duced on the minds of the Jews, in consequence of 
which they discredited their own experience, and 
received, as true, statements which they had every 
reason to disbelieve, and every inducement to re- 
pudiate. The latter of these suppositions all parties 
will unite in rejecting. But if so, a logical necessity 
compels to the admission of the alternative. 

Once more: if we suppose the description given 
in the Gospels of our Lord’s conduct and character 
to be fictitious, we must be prepared to assign an 
adequate motive for the composition and publica- 
tion of such a fiction. One of the most fixed and 
certain laws of human action is, that no man engages 
in any laborious or dangerous undertaking, except 
under the constraint of some powerful motive. This 
is a principle as settled as any of the laws of the 
material universe; so that we can count upon it as 
surely as we do upon them. Now, when a man 
publishes a fiction, the motive must be either desire 
of gain, or love of applause, or delight in the con- 
templation of such a character as that ascribed 
to the hero of the piece, or a desire, through the 
medium of an attractive tale, to improve men by 


152 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


~ leading them to admire and love virtue as embodied 
in the person whose history professedly is narrated. 
But none of these motives can be supposed in the 
case before us. There was nothing to be gained, 
either of wealth or honour by the apostles, from 
their asserting the excellence of their crucified 
Master, or from their contriving and attempting to 
palm upon the Jews such a story as his. And it 
has been already shown, that men wicked enough 
to practise a deliberate cheat upon the world in a 
matter so solemn, and so fraught with irretrievable 
results as the basis of a new religion, could have no 
sincere delight in a character so transparently sin- 
cere and pure as that of Christ, and no honest, 
certainly no absorbing and self-sacrificing desire to 
serve the cause of virtue and benefit their fellows. 
When, then, we are asked to believe that the nar- 
rative of the evangelists is a fiction, the proposal is 
that, contrary to all experience, and to a fixed law 
of our mental dynamics, we shall regard these men 
as having composed, published, and issued this 
fiction, not only without any conceivable motive, 
but in the face of the strongest possible motives to 
the contrary. ase, interest, inclination, were to 
be consulted by their remaining silent; but all these 
they deliberately and perseveringly sacrificed for the 
sake of inducing the world to accept a fiction for a 
truth. The supposition is monstrous. What the 
infidel asks us to believe is a natural impossibility. 
He would have us to accept a miracle without 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 153 


the hypothesis of divine agency to make it cred- 
ible. 

It appears, then, that on the infidel hypothesis it 
is impossible to account for either the origin, or the 
publication, or the reception of such a representa- 
tion as we find the evangelists concur in giving of 
their Master. The nature of the case is such, that 
we are constrained to admit the reality of that rep- 
resentation; or, as the only alternative, resort to 
the supposition of a series of miracles accomplished 
by supernatural power, for the purpose of producing 
and giving success to a falsehood. By declining 
both sides of this alternative, the infidel places him- 
self in the unphilosophical position of refusing the 
only supposition that will account for what he can- 
not but admit to be facts. 


Lie 


Having shown that the character of our Lord, as 
delineated by the evangelists, must be accepted as 
historically true, I proceed to argue that, ¢f so, his 
religion must be divine. The argument here lies 
in a narrow compass; but it seems as cogent as it 
is brief. 

It will be admitted, as not subject to the least 
doubt, that Jesus Christ, in his public teaching, dis- 
tinctly and unequivocally gave himself out as a 
divinely- commissioned messenger to men. He 
asserted that he had come from God—that God 
was with him—that the doctrine he taught was of 


154 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


God—and that those who rejected him rejected 
God.* Now, in making this assertion, Christ either 
spoke the truth, or he did not. If the former, then 
there is an end of the controversy; for if he was 
a divinely-commissioned and divinely-sanctioned 
teacher, whose doctrine is that of God, there can 
remain no further doubt as to the truth and divinity 
of his religion. But if this, his solemn and re- 
peated asseveration, was false, then the fact of his 
having made such an asseveration has to be ac 
counted for, and that in accordance with his known 
character and conduct in general. 

Again: our Lord repeatedly asserted that he was 
the Messiah promised in the Old Testament to the 
Jews, and that in him all the predictions of the an- 
cient prophets concerning the Messiah were ful- 
filled. Of this it is unnecessary to cite passages in 
proof, for no one who has ever looked into the Gos- 
pels needs to be told that this was the one great 
profession of his ‘life as a public teacher. Now, 
Jesus Christ either was the predicted Messiah, or 
he was not. If he was, we must receive him as the 
great deliverer and teacher promised by God to the 
world; we must reverence him as the delegate of 
God to us; and we must regard as divine those pre- 
dictions concerning him which are contained in the 
Old Testament, and, by consequence, the writings 
in which these are contained. If he was not the 


* John v, 37; viii, 16, 38, 42; x, 18, 38; Matt. x, 40; John xii, 48; 
xiii, 20, &. 


CHARACTER OF OHRIST. 155 


Messiah, then the fact of his saying he was, is a 
thing to be explained, and that in accordance with 
his known character in other respects. 

Now, I can conceive of but two suppositions 
which can be made by way of accounting for these 
two facts on the infidel hypothesis. According to 
that, our Lord’s assertions that he was divinely com- 
missioned, that his doctrine was of God, and that 
he was the predicted Messiah, were false. Either, 
then, our Lord was himself deceived as to his own 
position and pretensions, or he knowingly uttered 
what was false in order to deceive others. One or 
other of these suppositions the infidel must make; 
he has no other alternative. But will either of 
them stand the test for a moment? Is either of 
them, even remotely, compatible with that charac- 
ter which the evangelists have ascribed to Christ, 
and which has been already proved to be a real and 
not a fictitious character? Is it possible that a man 
so upright, so honest, so pure, so absolutely without 
sin in all other respects, should yet defame his whole 
life by one great, pervading, protracted, and diabol- 
ical falsehood? What, we may ask, among the mo- 
tives which sway the human will, can be conceived 
as the one which prompted and sustained such a 
monstrous incongruity? Or by what superhuman 
effort of vigilance, self-restraint, and ingenuity could 
a man who was the subject of such a fearful moral 
schism, and within whose bosom such an incessant 
strife was raging, preserve through life that unruf- 


156 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


fled serenity, that undisturbed harmony of moral 
development which impressed upon those most inti- 
mate with him the conception of such a character 
as we find unfolded in the Gospels, and led them to 
renounce all earthly advantages and comforts, and 
take the place of exiles and martyrs rather than not 
proclaim it? Surely the common sense of mankind 
cannot but pronounce this supposition ¢mpossible. 
Shall we, then, adopt the supposition that our Lord 
was himself deceived as to his own pretensions, and 
that when he set himself forward as the Messiah, 
and as a Divine Teacher, he did it honestly but mis- 
takingly? If we adopt this supposition, we must 
regard Jesus Christ not only as weak and foolish, 
but as positively insane. Nothing short of the 
wildest hallucination will account for a man really 
believing himself to have come from God, to be in 
continual intercourse with God, to be the medium 
of divine revelation to men, and to be the object 
of ancient prophecy and prediction, when nothing 
of all this is the case. A man may fall into mis- 
takes, it is trne, as to his own merits and claims, 
and yet be entitled to respect for his general intelli- 
gence and sanity; but, for a man to make such a 
mistake as is hereby ascribed to Christ is irrecon- 
cilable with any condition but that of the most de- 
plorable insanity. Were such a case presented in 
a court of law, there is no judge or jury that would 
hesitate for a moment as to the verdict to be pro- 
nounced. Is this, then, the conclusion to which we 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 157 


are come in reference to Christ? Impossible! His 
whole character gives the lie to it. The calmness 
of his deportment, the prudence of his zeal, the so- 
briety of his language, the clearness of his intelli- 
gence, and the perfect symmetry and equipoise of 
his whole nature emphatically exclude such a sup- 
position. The very idea is unnatural and repulsive. 
It is utterly out of keeping with all we know of 
him. If ever there was a pure, a bright, an un- 
tainted, an undisordered intellect in human frame, 
it was that of Jesus Christ. 

Neither of these hypotheses, then, will stand the 
test of this simple historical fact, that the character 
of Christ was such as the evangelists depict it. But 
these two hypotheses exhaust the resources of infi- 
delity on this head. Has she any other to suggest? 
If not, does it not behoove her to relinquish her 
position, and in the spirit of sound, scientific inquiry 
accept the only hypothesis on which this undoubted 
fact can be satisfactorily explained ? 


158 CHRIST AND OHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER H. 


ARGUMENT FROM THE MIRACULOUS EVENTS IN THE LIFE 
OF CHRIST NARRATED BY THE EVANGELISTS. 


No one in reading the narrative of our Lord’s 
life in the evangelists, can fail to be struck with the 
miraculous character of a large proportion of the 
incidents therein recorded. The history of Christ 
begins with a miracle of a very remarkable kind, and 
it ends with one which, if less startling, is not less 
decidedly supernatural ; while, during the interval, 
we are continually encountering cases in which our 
Lord was either the subject of miraculous opera- 
tion, or was himself the performer of miracles. His 
birth, we are told, was in consequence of the direct 
agency of the Creative Spirit, exerted upon the per- 
son of a young and pure virgin. No sooner had the 
event happened than a vision of angels announced 
it to certain shepherds, who immediately betook 
themselves to the place where he was born, to offer 
their homage. A new and mysterious luminary in 
the heavens attracted the notice of the wise magi of 
the East, and brought them to pay their obeisance 
to the new-born babe. An angel sent to warn of 
danger led to his being carried down to Egypt, so 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 159 


as to escape the bloody rage and jealousy of Herod, 
who feared in him the rise of a power dangerous to 
his own. After a lapse of nearly thirty years, spent 
in the retirement of a provincial town, he suddenly 
appeared in the vicinity of the metropolis, claiming 
to be the Messiah promised to the fathers of the Jew- 
ish people, and in support of that claim he taught 
publicly, and performed many works of a supernatu- 
ral kind,—such as healing all manner of diseases 
instantaneously and by a word, casting out devils, 
opening the eyes of the blind and the ears of the 
deaf, raising the dead, feeding large multitudes of 
people with what was naturally sufficient only for a 
very few, calming the stormy elements by an utter- 
ance of authority, and reading with an unerring in- 
tuition the secret thoughts and feelings both of friend 
and foe. In addition, we are told that on three 
distinct occasions sensible evidence was afforded of 
his heavenly commission: once by a descent upon 
him of the Spirit of God in some visible form, 
accompanied by the utterance of a voice from 
heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom 
I am well pleased ;” a second time by an utterance 
of substantially the same testimony, followed by a 
command to “hear him,” delivered to certain of hig 
disciples who were with him on one of the mountains 
of Palestine, and who, as one of them many years 
afterward wrote, were there “eye-witnesses of his 
majesty,” when he was transfigured before them, 
and “his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment 


160 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


was white as the light ;” and a third time, when, in 
answer to a prayer of his, that God would glorify 
his own name, “there came a voice from heaven 
saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it 
again,”—a voice which, at once loud and sweet, 
made some who stood around think “it thundered,” 
while “others said, An angel spake unto him.” 
Matt. iii, 17; xvii,5; 2 Pet.1, 16; John xii, 28-30. 
After three years spent in continual exertions to 
instruct, convince, and benefit his countrymen ac- 
cording to the flesh, Jesus was cruelly and unjustly 
put to death according to the Roman method of 
crucifixion, in order to gratify the malice and ap- 
pease the jealousy of the rulers of the Jews, whom 
he had provoked, not less by his repudiation of their 
narrow and bigoted sectarianism, than by his free 
denunciation of the evil practices in which they 
indulged. Even here, miraculous attestations ac- 
companied him ;—as his Spirit passed away in the 
triumphant exclamation, “It is finished!” a super- 
natural darkness overspread the earth, an unseen 
hand rent the sacred veil of the temple in twain, 
and an earthquake shook the earth till it rent the 
rocks, flung open the tombs, and awoke the slum- 
bering dead. And then came the crowning miracle 
of the whole, as respects direct attestation of his 
divine commission—his resurrection from the dead. 
After lying the greater part of three days, enveloped 
in grave-clothes, and in a tomb hewn out of the rock 
and firmly closed, he, on the morning of the third 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 161 


day arose from the dead, and came forth from the 
tomb, and appeared to his disciples; and, as it 
would seem, along with him arose many of the 
saints, whose tombs had been shaken open by the 
earthquake which accompanied his death. After 
showing himself to his disciples on repeated occa- 
sions, and having much close intercourse with some 
of them, he, in the view of the assembled multitude 
of them, ascended up into the air, until at length 
he was lost to their sight; thus closing, in a miracle 
of triumph, a life which had been one continued 
scene of marvel from its commencement to its 
close. 

Now these things the evangelists tell us as matters 
of history and fact. They narrate them in the so- 
berest, quietest manner possible, as if they were 
mere matters of course. They have no formal way 
of introducing them, no method of calling attention 
to them, no disposition to linger over them, as if 
they wished to make the most of them. They nar- 
rate them just as they narrate the commonest inci- 
dents of their Master’s life. They evidently, there- 
fore, intend that their readers shall regard them as 
standing on the same ground of historical reality as 
any other parts of their narrative. They write as 
persons who themselves believed these things act- 
ually to have oceurred, and who would have their 
readers to accept them, not as mere rumours, or as 
vehicles for the administration of spiritual truths, 


but as simple facts which came to pass within the 
Bi 


162 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


sphere of our Lord’s personal activity while he was 
on earth. Enlightened historical criticism, there- 
fore, has no other verdict to pass upon the narra- 
tive, than that either such things actually did occur, 
or that its authors have deliberately committed to 
writing as history what they must have known to 
be pure fictions. 

Attempts have, indeed, been made to save the 
reputation of the evangelists as men of honesty, by 
imputing their bona fide narratives of the miracu- 
lous occurrences in our Lord’s history to uninten- 
tional mistakes. This idea, first suggested by some 
of our English deists, was at one time highly popu- 
lar among the German neologists, who sought to 
explain all the miracles recorded in the Gospels by 
referring them to natural occurrences, of which the 
disciples of Jesus were either ignorant or which 
they misunderstood. Thus, for instance, our Lord’s 
resurrection was got rid of by supposing that he was 
only in a swoon when buried, and that the door of 
the sepulchre having somehow fallen open, the fresh 
air revived him, and he took the opportunity of 
escaping the vigilance of the guard, and fleeing 
from Jerusalem to the retreats of the Essenes on 
the banks of the Jordan, where he lay hid from his 
enemies. This, it is easy to see, is but a clumsy 
attempt; for it seeks to get rid of one miracle by 
supposing another. Such a feat of agility and en- 
durance on the part of a man who had suffered 
crucifixion, had been pierced to the heart by a 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 163 


spear, and had lain in a swoon for three days in a 
closely-shut tomb, and wrapped in grave-clothes, is 
quite as much a suspension of the ordinary laws of 
nature as an actual resurrection from the dead. It 
only needed that such a method of dealing with the 
Gospel narratives should be allowed free scope to 
render it utterly ridiculous and contemptible in the 
eyes of all men; and accordingly, it no sooner 
reached its highest development than it dug its own 
grave, and was buried amid the universal mockery 
of even the neologians themselves.* This attempt, 
then, to save the character of the evangelists at the 
expense of common sense, may now be regarded as 
entirely exploded, so that nothing remains but the 
alternative either to receive their miraculous narra- 
tives as ¢rue, or to regard them as deliberate and jn- 
tentional falsehoods. 

If we are content to assume the former of these 
suppositions, we shall then have only to inquire, 
What bearing have these miraculous narratives upon 
the claims of Jesus Christ as a religious teacher, 
and, by consequence, upon the pretensions of hig 
religion to be received as divine? But if we hesi- 
tate between this and the latter supposition, we shall 
then have to inquire whether there be any reason 
constraining us to believe that these men have been 
guilty of the crime of falsehood, and whether it be 
not rather in the highest degree improbable that in 


“ Strauss never loses an opportunity of making himself merry 
at the expense of the interpreters of this school. 


164 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


their case such a charge should hold true. The 
necessity of dealing with the sceptic prescribes the 
latter as the proper course to be pursued in the first 
instance, in this essay. When the veracity of the 
witnesses has ‘been vindicated, it will be proper to 
proceed to estimate the argumentative worth of 
what they attest. 


Ls 


Now, in asserting the veracity of the evangelists, 
in their miraculous narratives, it is legitimate, in the 
outset, to claim for them the privilege to which all 
men are entitled, that of being held honest until 
they have been proved to be not honest. It is con- 
trary to all justice to affix a stigma upon any wit- 
ness, and bring him into court with a prejudice 
hanging over him in respect of his integrity, in the 
absence of all proof, or even reasonable presump- 
tion, that he is otherwise than trustworthy and sin- 
cere. Thus to throw discredit upon the honesty of 
another is itself to be dishonest; and as it would 
not be tolerated among honourable men, where 
even the smallest interest is at stake, it ought not 
to be tolerated where interests so momentous as 
those hanging upon the claims of Christianity are 
involved. The evangelists, therefore, are entitled 
to be treated as honest men, who would not delib- 
erately attest a falsehood, until some evidence that 
they were not such be supplied; and as no such 
evidence has yet been furnished, as not even a 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 165 


shadow of suspicion has, from any legitimate source, 
been cast upon their uprightness, it is no more than 
what is barely due to them, when they unitedly and 
seriously assert what they must have known to be 
true if it did occur, to claim that their statement 
should be received with the presumption that it is 
true. This is asking for them nothing more than in 
common fairness all men are entitled to. 

Further, this presumption advances in strength, 
when it is considered that what they narrate rests 
not merely on their individual testimony, but on 
the common belief of hundreds of their contempo- 
raries. Of this there can be no doubt. Whatever 
hypothesis we assume as to the origin of the Gos- 
pels, there is no questioning the fact that the things 
therein recorded were the things most sincerely be- 
lieved among the Christians at the time they were 
written. Their close agreement with each other, 
and their universal reception by the Christians, are 
explainable only on the supposition that the things 
narrated in them were viewed by all Christians as 
having actually taken place. If, then, the Gospels 
be, as we have proved them to be, genuine, the 
miracles they record were believed to have been 
real occurrences by multitudes who were alive and 
on the spot at the time they are said to have oc- 
curred. Every one of these, then, becomes a dis- 
tinct witness in the case, so that what we have to 
deal with is not the testimony merely of four men, 
but the testimony of a large multitude of men—of 


166 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


acommunity. It is not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
John only, that depone to these occurrences; it is 
the united voice of the whole Christian Church of 
the first century that proclaims them to us. Are 
all these men, then, to be put aside as liars? is this 
“cloud of witnesses” to be swept away as an im- 
posture and a mockery? is such a combination of 
testimony to be treated as if it were no better than 
the unsupported story of some convicted knave? 
Common equity and common reason alike forbid 
such a conclusion. 

Thirdly, The improbability that the primitive 
Christians should concur in a falsehood of this kind 
is greatly increased when we consider the olyect for 
which alone such a falsehood could be propagated. 
That object could be none other than the recom- 
mendation of the religion which they professed to 
others. We must suppose, therefore, that hundreds 
of persons residing in or around Jerusalem con- 
spired to impose upon their neighbours by asserting 
that during the lifetime of the existing generation 
certain miracles had been performed there, know- 
ing all the while that such was not the case, but 
hoping by this means to induce the people to em- 
brace the religion, by the Author of which it was 
alleged these miracles had been wrought. Now, it 
seems hardly possible that any rational understand- 
ing can believe this. The difficulties in the way of 
such belief are insurmountable. There is, first of 
all, the difficulty of accounting, on this supposition, 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 167 


for these persons themselves becoming Christians ; 
for, if they were sincerely devout, how could they 
endure to embrace a religion which required such 
unblushing falsehood to sustain it? and if they were 
hypocritical and wicked, what could have induced 
them to become the followers of a faith not only 
unpopular, but in which insincerity and falsehood 
are denounced as among the greatest crimes? Then 
there is the difficulty of comprehending how any 
human beings could have the audacity to expect 
that such a falsehood could exist for a moment, 
when uttered before a community in the midst of 
which the deeds ascribed to Jesus Christ were 
alleged to have been performed. These deeds, if 
done at all, “were not done in a corner,” and there 
must have been thousands then alive who could 
from their own personal knowledge, arrive at per- 
fect certainty as to whether such things occurred or 
not.* Of this the first preachers of Christianity 
were fully aware, and so far were they from seek- 


** Rusebius has preserved a remarkable passage from the lost 
Apology of Quadratus, a Christian of the apostolic age, and one 
of that class of officers called evangelists, whose work, the histo- 
rian tells us, consisted in “travelling abroad, ambitious to preach 
Christ to those who had not heard the word of faith, and to deliver 
to them the Scripture of the divine Gospels.””—AHist. Eccles., 1. iii, 
c. 387. In the passage cited by Eusebius, Quadratus says: “The 
deeds of our Saviour were always at hand; for they were true; 
those who were healed, those who were raised from the dead, were 
not merely seen cured and raised, but they were always at hand; 
and that, not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but after he 
had gone away they continued for a considerable time, so that some 
of them reached even to our times.”—Hist. Eccles., 1. iv, ¢. 3. 


168 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


ing to shun the test which the knowledge of their 
countrymen thus supplied, that they from the first 
appealed to this in vindication of the authenticity 
of their story. “Ye men of Israel,” said Peter, on 
the day of Pentecost, “hear these words: Jesus of 
Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by 
miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him 
in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know,” &e. 
Acts ii, 22. If, then, we are to suppose that the 
immediate followers of Jesus expected to gain any 
support to their cause from boldly asserting as well- 
known facts what every man who heard them speak 
must have known to be falsehoods, we must set them 
down as a company of the greatest simpletons that 
ever lived—we must, in fact, believe them insane. 
But this is not all; we must believe that they had 
some secret power of so inoculating other people 
with their insanity that they got them to believe 
these stories, and to embrace at all hazards a re- 
ligion which had to propagate for its credit a series 
of statements which they had the most perfect as- 
surance were most impudent and disgraceful false- 
hoods! This is another difficulty, and in my judg- 
ment an insuperable one, in the way of the suppo- 
sition now under notice. People may be persuaded 
to embrace opinions which are not true, when they 
are ingeniously defended or eloquently urged; peo- 
ple may be cajoled into believing that something 
marvellous was done in secret, which they would 
have seen had they been there; but that people 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 169 


could be brought to believe that miracles had been 
done in the streets and in public assemblies, and in 
the midst of large gatherings of people, in their 
own day, and at their own place, by one whom 
everybody knew, and that the sensation excited by 
them was such that his fame had spread over the 
whole country, when all this was a pure and inter- 
ested falsehood, is such a phenomenon as this world, 
I venture to say, never saw, and never will see. 
Our choice, therefore, lies between believing the 
miraculous events recorded by the evangelists, 
and believing all the impossibilities at which 
I have just glanced. To a sound mind there 
does not appear much room for hesitation here. 
Sense and nonsense may be both marvellous, but 
when our choice lies between marvellous sense 
and marvellous nonsense, it does not seem as 
if any rational man could hesitate long which to 
believe. 

Fourthly, A belief in the veracity of the evan- 
gelical narrative of our Lord’s miracles becomes a 
psychological necessity, when we consider the con- 
sequences to the primitive Christians themselves of 
their assertion of the facts contained in that nar- 
rative. According to our natural constitution, our 
actions are regulated by certain mental laws, which 
are as fixed in their operation as the laws of the 
material creation, and any manifest suspension or 
superseding of which is as much a miracle as is the 
suspension of any of the ordinary laws of nature. 


170 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Now, one of these laws of mind is, that men never 
- act without a motive; and another is, that the 
nature and force of the motive are indicated by the 
character and permanency of the act. On these 
laws we proceed with the utmost confidence in the 
daily business of life. We never hope to induce 
men to follow any particular course, unless we can 
supply an adequate motive to induce them so to do; 
and if at any time we see men acting in a manner 
which appears to us strange, we never think of 
attributing their conduct to the want of a sufficient 
motive; we only ask, What can be their motive for 
acting thus? and set ourselves, from the character 
and tendency of their conduct, to find out by what 
motive it is prompted. Now, let us apply these 
principles of our nature to the case before us. The 
fact with which we are presented is, that the apostles 
of Jesus Christ, and their associates, affirmed con- 
tinually the truth of the miraculous events in his 
history, and that certain of them committed ac- 
counts of these to writing. For this fact we have 
to account; and if we would not ascribe it to mira- 
cle, we must account for it according to the ordinary 
laws of human conduct. The apostles and evange- 
lists, then, must have had an adequate motive for 
the way in which they thus acted: what was it? 
If we regard them as honest men, who affirmed these 
things because they knew them to be true, and 
because they deemed them to be highly important, 
we need inquire no further; their motive, in this 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 171 


case, is most manifest, and it is sufficient to account 
for every part of their conduct: as honest men they 
could not do otherwise than they did, if their story 
be true. If, on the other hand, we suppose that 
story false, and themselves consequently dishonest, 
it will be impossible to bring their conduct under 
any of the known laws that regulate the proceedings 
of men—nay, it will be impossible to construe it 
so as not to represent it in the light of a direct vio- 
lation of certain of these laws. When men attempt 
to persuade their fellow-men to believe a falsehood, 
it can only be in the hope of thereby gaining some 
selfish end. Noman can doubt this; it is as certain 
as any of the laws of nature. If, then, the disciples 
of Jesus Christ reported falsely of him, it must have 
been because they had something to gain thereby; 
and if, after making the experiment, they persisted 
in this course, it must have been because they found 
it to be actually a profitable one. This is the only 
supposition which the man who rejects their testi- 
mony can make. Well; will it stand the test of 
facts? We know the history of these early advo- 
cates of Christianity ; was their course a prosperous 
one in a worldly point of view? Did their attach- 
ment to Christ bring them fame, power, wealth, 
honours, ease, or any of those advantages which 
men covet in this life? Did it minister to their pride, 
or vanity, or love of indulgence? Were they in any 
way the better or happier for it in a worldly point 
of view? Who does not know that there is almost 


172 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


a species of mockery in the very asking of such 
questions? Who needs to be told that the orily secu- 
lar result to the first preachers and professors of 
Christianity was the scorn and hatred of all around 
them, accompanied with the severest penalties and 
the cruelest inflictions at the hands of those who 
were in power? There was nothing to gratify 
the pride of intellect in their merely repeating the 
lessons which they had learned from their Master. 
There was no reputation likely to accrue to them 
from upholding the pretensions of one who had 
been put to death as a blasphemer, amid the exe- 
crations of ruler and populace. There was nothing 
gratifying to human nature in imprisonment, con- 
fiscation of property, cruel scourgings, banishment, 
stoning, and such like. It was but a poor end of 
life in a worldly point of view, after years of toil, 
penury, and suffering, to be cast to the wild beasts 
in the amphitheatre, or to be wrapped in a robe of 
pitch, and slowly consumed at the stake as a light 
in the streets at night. And yet such indignities, 
injuries, and tortures, the early Christians persisted 
in enduring* rather than give up their belief in 
Jesus, and their assertion of the facts concerning 
him recorded in the evangelists. Plainly, there- 
fore, the hypothesis which would attribute their 
conduct to selfish motives, to a desire for worldly 
advantage, must be set aside as simply ridiculous ; 


“See the testimony of the heathen Tacitus, Annal., l. xv, ¢. 44, 
Comp. Juvenal, Sat. i, 155. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. ive 


and with it falls to the ground the supposition that 
they were the propagators of what they knew to be 
false, for the one supposition involves the other. 
The difficulties which press upon the infidel who, 
in the face of such facts, calls in question the veracity 
of the evangelists, are such, that the wonder is, that 
any man pretending to the possession of reason could 
persuade himself to encounter them. It may seem 
an easy thing to say, “The apostles and their fol- 
lowers were deceivers,” but the man who says this 
intelligently and honestly, must have a capacity of 
believing impossibilities such as men of ordinary 
powers cannot comprehend. For what must such 
a one believe in order to be consistent? He must 
believe that certain men got up a story in which 
they affirmed that one Jesus performed, or was the 
subject of, a number of miracles which took place 
for the most part in the most public places in Jeru- 
salem and the land of Judea—that they published 
this story in Jerusalem itself, 2 few weeks after their 
Master had been put to death by the malice of the 
rulers of the Jews, and while thousands were living 
who could say whether the story was true or false— 
that though the story was quite false, as respected 
its most remarkable facts, they got hundreds of 
these very people to believe it—that they put them- 
selves to very great trouble to propagate their fab- 
ricated story, though everywhere it brought on them 
persecution and suffering—that they and multitudes 
of their followers suffered martyrdom in its most 


174 _ CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


appalling shapes, rather than give up this falsehood 
—and that they wrote the story in books in which 
they faithfully narrate not only the wise words and 
wonderful actions of their Master, but also all that 
he endured at the hands of the Jews, as well as a 
good deal that is not especiallv honouring to them- 
selves; and this, with the view of perpetuating the 
unprofitable fiction after they themselves were 
dead. Such is the creed of the infidel! He must 
believe all this if he refuses to believe the narratives 
of the evangelists. There is no escape from this 
alternative. A man cannot be simply a scepézc in 
a case like this. If he will not believe the miracles 
in the Gospels, he must believe a great many things 
far more incredible than any of these, a order to 
disbelieve them. One thing is certain, a miracle of 
some sort he must accept—either a natural one or a 
moral one—either the miracles of the Gospels, or 
the miracles presented in the conduct of the early 
Christians, if we suppose them impostors. It does 
not seem difficult to determine which of these a really 
honest and intelligent man will adopt. 

On these grounds I cannot but regard the verac- 
ity of the four evangelists, in their narrative of the 
miraculous events of our Lord’s history, as proved. 
It may be worth while, however, to mention, before 
passing from this part of the subject, the corrobora- 
tion which this conclusion receives from various 
external sources. It is corroborated by the consent 
of the Jews ; for (not to lay any stress on the testi- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 175 


mony of Josephus, inasmuch as the passage in his 
writings referring to Jesus is regarded by many 
eminent scholars as spurious, and is undoubtedly 
largely interpolated)* there are such references to 
our Lord in the Talmud as clearly show that, with 
whatever hatred the Jews regarded the memory of 
Jesus of Nazareth, they never thought of calling in 
question either his existence, his miracles, or his — 
vast influence. Dr. Lardner, who has examined 
this subject with his usual pains and candour, thus 
states the sum of their testimony: “In the Talmud- 
ical writings Jesus is mentioned. . . . . They call 
his mother by the name Mary... . . They have 
mentioned several of our Saviour’s disciples who, as 
they say, were put to death. They say our Saviour 
suffered as a malefactor at one of the Jewish pass- 
overs, or in the eve of it, as the expression is, 
They seem, in some places, to acknowledge the 
power of miracles in Jesus and his disciples; and if 
they had not known that many miraculous works 
were ascribed to him, they would not have insinu- 
ated that he learned magical arts in Egypt, and 
brought them thence in a private manner, and then 
set up himself among his countrymen as an extraor- 
dinary person.”+ With the opinion of the Jews as to 
the power by which our Lord wrought his wonderful 
works, we have here nothing to do; they are ad- 


* See Gieseler’s Ecclesiastical History, by Davidson, vol. i, p. 63, 
where the whole literature of this question is given. 
t Works, vol. vii, p. 189. 


176 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


duced at present simply in the capacity of witnesses, 
and all that we want of witnesses is depositions as 
to facts. Making due allowance for prejudice, 
bigotry, and passion, the above may be regarded 
as a very unequivocal attestation of the general 
veracity of the evangelical history. 

Before passing from the conduct of the Jews in 
reference to the miracles of Christ, there is one fact 
which has not been much noticed, but which is too 
important to be altogether passed over. If these 
miracles were fictitiously ascribed to our Saviour by 
his disciples, how comes it that they alone of all 
their contemporaries and nation bethought them- 
selves of such a mode of commending their religious 
system? Or, how comes it that the Jews did not 
attempt to get up a set of counter miracles with 
which to meet and discredit those imputed to Jesus 
Christ? On this head the following remarks of the 
illustrious Edwards seem to me worthy of considera- 
tion: “Tf all that multitude, and that long-continued 
series of miracles, recorded to be wrought in confir- 
mation of Christianity, were fictions, vain pretences, 
or enthusiastic whims and imaginations; why were 
there no pretences or imaginations of the same sort, 
on the other side, among the Jews, in opposition to 
these? Those of the Jews that were opposed to 
Christianity were vastly the greater part of the 
nation. And they had as high an opinion of the 
honourableness of those gifts of prophecy and mira- 
cles as Christians. They had as much in their 


OHARAOCTER OF CHRIST. ETT 


notions and tempers, to lead them to a fondness for 
the claim of such an honour to their party. They 
were exceedingly proud and haughty—proud of their 
special relation to God, and of their high privilege 
as the peculiar favourites of Heaven; and, in this 
respect, were exalted far above Christians, and all 
the world—which is a temper of mind (as we see 
abundantly) above all others, leading men to pre- 
tences of this nature, and leading them to the height 
of enthusiasm. 

“There could be nothing peculiar in the constitu- 
tion of the first Christians, arising from a different 
blood, peculiarly tending in them to enthusiasm, 
beyond the rest of the Jews, for they were of the 
same blood, the same race and nation. Nor could 
it be because they wanted zeal against Christianity, 
and a desire to oppose and destroy it; or wanted 
envy and great and virulent opposition of mind, to 
any pretences in the Christians to excel them in the 
favour of God, or excellency of any gifts or privi- 
leges whatsoever. They had such zeal and such 
envy, even to madness and fury. 

“The true reason, therefore, why so vast a multi- 
tude of miracles were said and believed to be openly 
wrought among Christians, for so long a time, even 
for a whole age, and none among the Jews, must be, 
that such was the nature and state of things in the 
world of mankind, especially in that age, that it 
was not possible to palm false pretences of such a 


kind upon the world; and that those who were 
12 


178 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


most elated with pride, and most ambitious of such 
an honour, could see no hope of succeeding in any 
such pretences; and because the Christians indeed 
were inspired, and were enabled to work miracles, 
and did work them, as was pretended and believed, 
in great multitudes, and this continually for so long 
atime. But God never favoured their adversaries 
with such a privilege.”* 

Next to the testimony of the Jews may be ranked 
that of the heathens, especially those of the first 
and second centuries. Now, persons of this class 
not only attest very fully the existence, in great 
multitudes, of the Christians, and certify their vir- 
tues and indomitable attachment to their religion, 
but they distinctly mention Jesus Christ as the 
author of that religion, and confirm, in several im- 
portant points the statements of the evangelists con- 
cerning him.+ It appears, moreover, in the Apolo- 
gies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, that Pilate 
had sent to Rome an account of the miraculous 
deeds, the crucifixion and the alleged resurrection 
of Jesus, which had so deeply impressed the Em- 
peror Tiberius, that he was inclined to offer him 
divine honours. Now, one might doubt the truth 
of this were it not well known that persons in the 
position of Pilate were in the habit of making 
reports of all remarkable events that took place in 


* Miscellaneous Observations on Important Theological Subjects, 
pp. 145-147. Edinb. 1793. ; 
T See the passages in Lardner, Works, vol. vii. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 179 


their governments, and were it not that the refer- 
ence to the report of Pilate is made both by Justin 
and Tertullian, not in writings intended only for 
their fellow-Christians, but in works addressed, the 
one directly to the reigning emperor, and the other 
to the governor of Africa. It is incredible that 
men, knowing the world as both Justin and Tertul- 
lian did, should commit themselves in an Apology 
intended to procure favour for them and their fel- 
low-Christians, by referring the emperor, or any of 
his officers, to public documents, for the authenti- 
cation of their statements, had it not been perfectly 
well known that such existed, and would support 
their appeal. We are bound to believe, then, that 
among the state papers of the empire at Rome there 
existed a report by the Roman proconsul, then resi- 
dent at Jerusalem, of the conduct and crucifixion of 
our Lord, corroborating the narrative of the evan- 
gelists.* Another corroboration, which, if less cu- 


“ See the careful and conclusive investigation of this subject by 
Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 231, ff. Attempts have been made to 
cast doubt upon the existence of any such documents as those re- 
ferred to by Justin and Tertullian, but without success. We must 
take care not to mix up this question with that of the pretensions 
of the extant Acts of Pilate and his Letter to Tiberius. These 
are undoubtedly forgeries, but this does not prove that no such 
documents as those cited by Justin and Tertullian ever existed. 
On the contrary, as no person would have thought of forging writ- 
ings under these titles, had it not been known that genuine writ- 
ings of this kind existed, the existence of the counterfeit rather 
favours a belief in the genuineness of the documents alleged. Be- 
sides Lardner, two other great scholars, deeply versed in such in- 
quiries, have vindicated the claims of these documents, Casaubon 


180 CHRIST AND CURISTIANITY. 


rious, is not less important, is furnished by Celsus, 
the determined, and, it is presumed, able opponent 
of Christianity, in the latter half of the second cen- 
tury. Unfortunately his work against the Christians 
is lost, but in the reply to it written by Origen, and 
which has been preserved, we have large portions 
of it cited. Now, in these citations, Celsus fre- 
quently refers to the personal history, doctrines, 
and miracles of our Lord; indeed, he hardly omits 
anything of importance which the evangelists have 
recorded. As respects the miraculous events in our 
Lord’s history, Celsus notices nearly all of them. 
He refers to the conception of Jesus as the work 
of the Spirit of God, and as produced by divine 
operation. He mentions the visit of the magi, with 
the appearance of the star—the flight into Egypt 
in consequence of the warning conveyed by an 
angel—the descent of the Spirit in the form of a 
dove at his baptism, accompanied by the divine at- 
testation of his being the Son of God—the portents 
attendant on his crucifixion—the rolling of the stone 
from the door of the sepulchre by an angel—and his 
resurrection from the dead, with his subsequent ap- 
pearance to his disciples. He also refers to the mira- 
cles which our Lord himself wrought, especially his 
healing of diseases, his multiplying the loaves, his 
curing the lame and the blind, and his raising the 
in his Exercitationes ad Baronii Annales, Ex. xvi, 154, p. 675, and 


Bishop Pearson, in his Lectiones in Acta Apostolorum, Lect. iii, § 4; 
and v, § 14. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 181 


dead.* These miracles Celsus admits him to have 
performed, though he tries to make out that others 
have done as much. His references to the other 
events in our Lord’s life are full of mockery and 
scurrility, as might be expected in a heathen phi- 
losopher trying to write down Christianity. But it 
is worthy of notice that he rarely calls in question 
the facts themselves, and never once impeaches the 
veracity of the evangelists. How is this to be ac- 
counted for in so bitter and unscrupulous an adver- 
sary, excepting on the assumption that he knew it 
was in vain to attempt to cast doubt upon facts 
which were so notoriously true? Celsus would 
have stigmatized them as falsehoods, had he enter- 
tained the remotest hope that such a stigma would 
adhere to them. As it was, his only resource lay in 
admitting the facts, but attempting to account for 
them by magic—a resource which, as it was the first 
to which the enemies of Jesus betook themselves, - 
(for we learn from the evangelists, that even during 
his lifetime the rulers of the Jews tried to impute 
his miracles to the power of Beelzebub,) so was it 
the only one which the early opponents of his re- 
ligion dared to employ. In the present day the in- 
fidel is as little likely as the Christian to embrace 
such an hypothesis; but by the infidel, no less than 
by the Christian, the distinct testimony of the early 
enemies of Christianity to the reality of the facts 
ought to be held worthy of the gravest regard. 
* See Lardner, Works, vol. viii, p. 5, ff. 


182 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Ul. 


It appears, then, that we have the strongest pos- 
sible reason for receiving the miraculous events in 
the evangelists as historically true. The balance of 
probability in their favour is such that, according to 
the ordinary laws of human belief, we cannot but 
admit that they actually occurred; or, at any rate, 
if we would consistently maintain the opposite, we 
must accept as true a multitude of things so in- 
credible that no human mind can possibly under- 
derstand, realize, and believe them. 

Having arrived at such a conclusion, the question 
as to the historical veracity of these narratives ought 
to be settled in our minds affirmatively. The only 
proper evidence of alleged events is moral proba- 
bility arising from the concurrence of the witnesses 
as tested by suitable criteria; and when it is shown 
that the narratives in the Gospels have this evi- 
dence in the highest degree—a degree so high as to 
approach to absolute demonstration—it is surely the 
part of wise and honourable minds to banish all re- 
luctance springing from unreasoning prejudice, to 
receive these narratives as credible, and to use them 
for such purposes of further proof as they may seem 
in sober reason capable of subserving. 

It often happens, however, that even when men ~ 
are obliged to admit an argument to be logically 
just and unanswerable, they resist the conclusion to 
which it conducts, in consequence of some feeling, 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 183 


or, it may be, conviction in their mind, that in spite 
of all that can be ‘said in its favour, the position 
alleged cannot be true. They hold it to be in itself 
a thing so utterly incredible, that no reasoning in 
its favour makes any impression upon them. Their 
logical understanding is, if not convinced, at least 
silenced; but the region of belief remains unaffected 
notwithstanding. It seems to them as if an intui- 
tion antecedent and superior to all logic forbade 
their giving credence to the assertion, and they re- 
coil from the reasoning by which it is proved, as a 
sort of attempt to coerce them into a belief of what 
they think they cannot believe. That this is the 
case with many in reference to the question under 
discussion, I cannot but feel assured; though, at the 
same time, I am persuaded that not a few assume 
this position merely because it gives them a plausi- 
ble pretext for casting aside as incredible what they 
have previously resolved that they will not credit. 
I cannot say that the former class give evidence of 
a very sound. or well-disciplined mind; still, if we 
regard them as sincere, we are bound to consider 
their case, and, as far as may be, to remove diffi- 
culties out of their way; and whether they be sin- 
cere or not, it concerns our cause that no objection 
that can with any show of plausibility be advanced 
- against any of our positions should be slightingly or 
negligently treated. I propose, therefore, before 
proceeding further, to devote some space to the con- 
sideration of the principal objections which are wont 


184 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


to be urged against the reception of the miraculous 
narratives in the Gospels as historically true. And 
here, that I may not tread on ground which may be 
considered already sufficiently trodden, I shall take 
up these objections as they appear in the most re- 
cent writings on the infidel side. 

In entering on this topic, 1 cannot but preface 
what I have to say with a complaint of the extreme 
vagueness and ambiguity of expression indulged in 
by nearly all the more modern objectors to Chris- 
tianity—qualities which render it frequently impos- 
sible to arrive at any certainty that we have exactly 
apprehended their meaning. It was not so with 
- the earlier race of infidels, at least in England. 
Bolingbroke, Collins, Tindal, Hume, and the rest, 
write like men whose conceptions were precise, and 
who knew exactly what they intended to say. The 
result is, that with a very moderate degree of atten- 
tion, one can always obtain an exact perception both 
of their positions, and of the reasonings by which 
they have endeavoured to sustain them. The ad- 
vantage of this to an opponent is manifest; and 
this may perhaps be one reason why it has been so 
singularly denied to us by those who of late years 
have sought to shake our faith in the truth of Chris- 
tianity. Another reason may be, that as most of 
the infidelity which has been recently propagated 
through the press here has been borrowed from 
Germany, and as the German writers are not re- 
markable, as a class, for pellucidity of thinking, it 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 185 


may be shrewdly suspected that they have com- 
municated a share of their cloudiness to their Brit- 
ish disciples,—if, indeed, there be not room to doubt 
whether the latter always understood their masters, 
or their masters always understood themselves.* 


* “Scarcely one of our philosophers,” says Menzel, “is under- 
stood by the people.”—German Literature, vol. i, p. 312; Gordon’s 
Translation. “Our Pantheistic mists are all of German origin, 
whether they have spread out into the sunny plains of France, or 
enveloped the shores of England, which little required their addi- 
tional haze.”— Douglas of Cavers, Popery and Infidelity, p.55. “I 
have never, in fact, met with a Hegelian (and I have known sey- 
eral of distinguished talent, both German and British) who could 
answer three questions, without being driven to the confession 
that he did not as yet fully comprehend the doctrine of his master, 
though bclieving it to be all true. Expectants—-in fact, ‘ Papists 
in philosophy!’ Hegel himself, not long before his death, made 
the following declaration: ‘I am downcast about my philosophy: 
for of all my disciples only one understands it; and he does not.’ 
(Blatter, f. liter. Unterhalt. No. 351, Dec. 1831; et alibi.) The one 
disciple, I presume, was Gabler; but did Hegel understand him- 
self?”— Sir W. Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, 
p. 787, second edition. It may be shrewdly doubted whether those 
in this country who have come forth as popular expounders of the 
German philosophy, in its application to questions of religion, are 
more likely to see through the “ palpable obscure ”’ of Hegelianism, 
than those whom Sir W. Hamilton questioned. The Germans 
themselves have given up all hope of being understood or appre- 
ciated in Britain. Bunsen has, indeed, compassionately tried to 
illumine our darkness, and open for us a royal road to German 
philosophy ; [see his Aphorisms prefixed to his work on Hippoly- 
tus and his Age;] but his success has not been such as to give 
him much encouragement to proceed in his benevolent efforts, 
People accustomed to the perspicacious thinking and accurate ex- 
pression which have so long honourably characterized British phi- 
losophy and theology, still persist in believing, that what a writer 
cannot distinctly put into words, he has not realized in thought. 
This determination, however, on the part of the mass of our coun- 
trymen, to comprehend before they adopt opinions, is regarded by 


186 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


But be the reason of this mistiness what it may, of 
the fact itself every one must have had experience 
who has looked into any of the recent productions 
of the opponents of Christianity. With whatever 
learning they may be filled, or however adorned by 
the graces of style, they exhibit a vexatious want of 
clearness and precision, in an argumentative point 
of view. At almost every stage, one needs to pause 
and ask, What does the writer mean by this? In 
what sense does he employ this word? or, in what 
way does this affirmed conclusion connect itself 
with the alleged premises? In an inquiry the great 
object of which should be the ascertaining of truth, 
such a method of procedure cannot be too strongly 
_ condemned. : 

The general position assumed by these writers 
against the miraculous narratives in the Gospels 1s, 
that they are encredible. Now, here it is extremely 
difficult to know what they mean. A statement is 


the Germans as a sad obstacle in the way of our enlightenment. 
A friend of mine, a professor of philosophy in a German univer- 
sity, and a Hegelian, once tried to initiate me into the mysteries 
of that faith. He had not proceeded far, until I happened to say, 
in reference to one of his positions, ‘Does that mean so and so?” 
using, at the same time, an instance to illustrate my conception. 
“Ah! my friend,” was his reply, as he took his pipe from between 
his lips, and turned on me his large blue eyes, full of the most 
genuine compassion, ‘you will never be a philosopher; that Eng- 
lish pragmatism sticks to you too closely.” I think it is Menzel 
who says, somewhere, that the Germans write much more intelligi- 
bly in Latin than in German, and that the reason is, they are obliged 
to arrive at a precise conception of what they mean to say, before 
they can attempt to express themselves in a foreign tongue. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 187 


incredible, when either it is such as the human mind 
cannot by its very constitution hold for true; or, 
when the evidence against it is such that no mind 
can, in accordance with sound principles of evidence, 
adinit it. But in neither of these senses can the 
miracles recorded in the Gospels be declared in- 
credible;—not in the former sense, for the mere 
fact that they have been, and are now firmly and 
intelligently believed by thousands of men, suffi- 
ciently refutes the absurd assertion, that the mind 
of man is physically incapable of regarding them as 
true; not in the latter, because, as has been already 
shown, the evidence in favour of these miracles so 
immensely preponderates, that the admission of 
their historical veracity is the only way to avoid 
being forced to admit what every man must feel to 
be immeasurably less likely to be true than they. 
When, therefore, infidels meet our arguments in 
support of this conclusion, by saying that the thing 
affirmed is incredible, they must use this word in 
some sense peculiar to themselves; or they must be 
regarded as employing it as a mere vague and in- 
definite formula of expressing that they do not choose 
to believe what we have proved. 

Remarks of a similar kind may be offered upon 
their frequently repeated assertion that miracles are 
empossible. This term, as every one knows, is am- 
biguous. There are three senses in which impossi- 
bility may be predicated of anything. It may be 
logically impossible, in which case the assertion of 


188 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


it can be demonstrated to involve a contradiction ; 
it may be morally impossible, by which is meant 
that the probabilities against it are such as to leave 
no doubt on the mind as to its being untrue; or it 
may be physically impossible, by which we mean 
that the being to whom it is ascribed could not, 
without setting aside natural laws to which he is 
subject, perform it. Now, in which of these three 
senses are miracles affirmed to be impossible? Not 
certainly in the first; for no man would dream for 
a moment of maintaining that there is any contra- 
diction in the affirmation of any of the miracles 
which Jesus Christ is said to have wrought; not in 
the second, because, as I have already shown, the 
probabilities are not against, but in the highest de- 
gree in favour of the Gospel miracles, and it would 
be no reply to this, simply, in the face of the evidence, 
to deny the conclusion; not in the third, for as a 
miracle is something ascribed to dwine power, and 
as there is nothing in the stability of nature to pre- 
yent its order being altered or suspended by the 
same hand by which it was at first constituted, it 
would be absurd to say that such an event is physi- 
cally impossible.* In what sense, then, are miracles 

** «Tt is an obvious truth, though, strange to say, continually over- 
looked in discussions of this nature, that the existence of a crea- 
tion necessarily implies a Creator; and that, if its subsequent, 
ordinary duration may be kept up by seemingly natural causes, 
the energy to which it owed its first production must have been, 
in the usual meaning of the term, miraculous, that is to say, a 


deviation from what are now deemed to be the established laws 
of Providence. This observation may be applied with almost equal 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 189 


to be held impossible? or what can infidels mean by 
scattering these ambiguous words among the masses, 
unless conscious of the weakness of their cause, they 
would compensate for infirmity of reason by bold- 
ness and largeness of asssertion. 

When from these more general assertions we de- 
scend to objections of a more specific kind against 
the miracles recorded in the Gospels, we find our 
path impeded by the same want of precision and 
distinctness. What, for instance, can be meant by 
the following passage from one of the most recent 
writers on this subject :* “It is not incredible that 
God should raise the dead, for his ability to do so is 
abundantly evident in nature; it is incredible only 


certainty of inference to the moral phenomena of human history, 
as to the physical.”— Shuttleworth, Consistency of Revelation with 
itself and Reason, p. 127. ‘What say you to the relics that stand 
out in such bold relief from the rocks beside us, [the Eathie Lias, ] 
in their character as the results of miracle? The perished tribes 
and races which they represent, all began to exist. There is no 
truth which science can more conclusively demonstrate than that 
they all had a beginning. The infidel who, in this late age of the 
world, would attempt to fall back on the fiction of ‘an infinite 
series,’ would be laughed to scorn. They all began to be. But 
how? No true geologist holds by the development hypothesis ; zt 
has been resigned to sciolists and smatterers; and there is but 
. one other alternative. They began to be through the miracle of 
creation. From the evidence furnished by these rocks, we are shut 
down either to the belief in miracle, or to the belief in something 
else infinitely harder of reception, and as thoroughly unsupported 
by evidence, as it is contrary to experience.”—Miller, Footprints 
of the Creator, p. 279. See also the admirable remarks in the 
Eclipse of Faith, p. 245, &e. 

“Mackay, Progress of the Intellect as exemplified in the Relig- 
ious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews, vol. i, p. 23. 


190 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


that he should do so in a manner inconsistent with 
his own eternal laws.” Now, here it seems to be 
admitted that it is perfectly credible that God should 
raise the dead, provided this were to be done with- 
out any infraction or interruption of any of the laws 
of nature. What can such an assertion mean? Is 
not the raising of the dead itself an act inconsistent 
with the ordinary laws of nature? and if so, is it not 
utter nonsense to make the non-violation of these 
laws the condition on which alone it is to be be- 
lieved that this violation of them actually took 
place? Perhaps it may be suggested that by “the 
eternal laws” of God here, the writer means the 
moral principles on which the Creator conducts the 
government of his intelligent universe. I do not 
gather that this is his meaning from his adjoined 
statements; but rather the contrary, for he goes on 
to speak of it as “no irrational inference which 
should have ascribed an admitted infraction of those 
laws to Beelzebub”—words which clearly fix his 
allusion to such laws as were infringed by our Lord 
when he performed the miracles which his enemies 
imputed to the powers of evil, 7. e. the ordinary 
physical laws. But, allowing that such were his 
meaning, and admitting at once that it is impossible 
for God to violate any moral law, I would ask, what 
relevancy has this to the case in hand? In what 
possible sense could it be affirmed that the miracles 
of Jesus Christ were inconsistent with the moral 
laws of God? When he raised Lazarus from the 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 191 


dead, what moral law, human or divine, did he vio- 
late? When he himself was raised from the dead 
by the power of God, with which of God’s eternal 
laws of truth and righteousness was this exercise of 
the divine power inconsistent? The absurdity here 
is only a little less glaring, it is not less real than on 
the former supposition. 

By some the impossibility and incredibility of 
miracles have been argued on the ground that the 
laws of nature are, like the laws of morality, essen- 
tial manifestations of God, and, consequently, that 
he can no more be supposed to set aside or violate 
the one, than he can be supposed to set aside or vio- 
late the other. To this reasoning I cannot see that 
it affords any relevant or adequate reply to say, that 
as moral ends are more important than physical, it is 
perfectly compatible with the highest conceptions of 
God, to suppose that he would, for the attainment 
of a great moral end, such as that involved in reve- 
lation, suspend for a season a law of the physical 
universe; for the question is not whether God will 
make subordinate ends give way to higher, but 
whether, for the attainment of any end whatsoever, 
he will act contrary to his own nature. The argu- 
ment, in fact, is essentially Pantheistic; it rests 
upon the identification of God with nature; and 
confounds the laws of nature with manifestations of 
essential Deity. -Deny this position—affirm the ex- 
istence of a personal Deity, distinct from nature, 
though omnipresent through it, and omnipotent 


192 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


over it, and any speciousness that belongs to the 
argument disappears. or in that case the laws 
of nature are not something belonging to the es- 
sence of God, but are simply certain arrangements 
which he has made for carrying on the created uni- 
verse. In this respect they differ entirely from 
moral laws; these are not arrangements or modes 
of creatural being, they are principles which have 
their basis in the divine essence. A law of nature 
simply expresses the mode in which God wills that 
a certain succession shall take place; a moral law 
expresses an eternal and unchangeable form of the 
divine existence. God cannot lie, because the neces- 
sity of his nature forbids it; God can raise a man 
from the dead, because the law that a man once 
dead remains dead is no part of God, no fact flow- 
ing out of the necessity of his nature, but simply 
an arrangement which, for certain reasons, he has 
seen meet to appoint over man. The argument is. 
thus clearly futile. He who made the arrangements 
of nature, for certain wise ends, may, when he sees 
meet for any sufficient reason, alter or suspend them. 

Of all the recent assailants of the credibility of 
the Gospels, Strauss is the one in whose writings one 
finds the greatest amount of clearness and distinct- 
ness of statement. In his observations, however, on 
the subject now before us, his usual clearness of con- 
ception and expression seems to have deserted him, 
and he writes as vaguely as the least vigorous of his 
followers. In the early part of his work he lays 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 193 


down certain criteria by which he proposes that the 
historical credibility of the Gospel narratives shall 
be tested, and among them is one intended especially 
to bear upon the miraculous portion of these narra- 
tives. The whole of this portion he would strike 
out, on the ground that “the absolute cause never 
disturbs the chain of secondary causes by single 
arbitrary acts of interposition, but rather manifests 
itself in the production of the aggregate of final 
causalities, and of their reciprocal action.” By 
“the absolute cause” must be here intended God; 
so that this statement simply amounts to a general 
assertion that God never interrupts the regular 
course of events by any single arbitrary act of 
interposition. Now, if by “arbitrary” here it be 
intended that God never interferes to suspend or 
violate any of the ordinary laws of nature, without 
a sufficient reason, the assertion is one in which all 
pious men will agree, as, in fact, one of the most 
obvious commonplaces of theology; but it is one 
also which every person of any intelligence will 
perceive to be utterly irrelevant to the matter in 
‘hand. No advocate of miracles ever asserted any-, 
thing so monstrous as that God, in performing these, 
acted recklessly, and set aside the laws of his own 
universe, for the mere sake of doing so; on the con- 
trary, the whole use of an appeal to miracles in proof 
of Christianity goes upon the assumption that these 
are never performed, except for a certain and wor- 


thy purpose, such as we aflirm the exhibition of the 
13 


194 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


divine authority of that religion to be. To say, 
therefore, that God never interferes with the ordi- 
nary course of nature except for a sufficient reason, 
is simply to aftirm what the advocates of miracles 
have always affirmed, and what, to be consistent 
with themselves, they cannot but affirm. On the 
other hand, if by “arbitrary interruptions of the or- 
dinary course of nature,” Dr. Strauss intends acts 
which are the immediate result of the divine volition, 
and are, consequently, departures from or violations 
of the ordinary laws of nature, then to affirm that 
God never does, or has done such acts, is simply to 
beg the whole question. Let Dr. Strauss prove that 
God never has done this, and he will forever settle 
the controversy in favour of his own side; but, in 
the mean time, as the thing which he chooses to 
say God never does, is precisely the thing which 
the evangelists, apostles, and early disciples con- 
stantly affirmed that our Lord, by the help of God, 
repeatedly did, we cannot allow him to puif aside 
their strong and convincing testimony by a mere 
ipse diait of this sort. Before we give up all to 
follow him in this matter, he must at least show us 
some sion by which we may believe that he is 
authorized to tell us with such unhesitating assur- 
ance within what limits the Omnipotent confines 
his power, so as never to do anything beyond these 
limits. 

In the absence of more cogent proof of his lofty 
assertions, Dr. Strauss appeals to the accordance of 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 195 


his assertion with “the universal laws which govern 
the course of events, agreeing with all just philo- 
sophical conceptions and all credible experience.” 
Here we have the same mistiness and confusion of 
thought, to say nothing of the grammar, of which I 
have already complained. In the first place, what 
is intended by the appeal here to “the universal 
laws which govern the course of events?” That 
there are such laws every one admits; but how 
these laws prove Dr. Strauss’s assertion that God 
never interferes with the course of events, does not 
very clearly appear. It may be very certain that 
the course of events is wswally allowed to flow on 
in obedience to certain laws, and yet it may be per- 
fectly true that He who appointed these laws may 
interfere, when he sees meet, to suspend or set 
aside, for a longer or a shorter time, any one of 
them. The one assertion surely does not logically 
exclude the other; and when Dr. Strauss, therefore, 
adduces the former as if it rendered impossible the 
latter, he is guilty of a blunder, which says little for 
his powers of accurate reasoning. In the next place, 
what is intended by his assertion being in agree- 
ment with “just philosophical conceptions?” This 
is vagueness itself. Such an assertion may mean 
anything or nothing. On every word of it we 
might raise a demand for explanation. “Just phi- 
losophical conceptions!” Conceptions of what? 
“Philosophical conceptions!” Of what sort pre- 
cisely are these? ‘Just philosophical conceptions!” 


196 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Amid the varied systems of philosophy which are 
contesting the supremacy, which is entitled to bear 
away the palm of alone dictating conceptions that 
are just? All here is left dark and shapeless. Is 
there design in this, that the author might seem to 
say something where he knew that he had nothing 
to the point to utter? Or is it merely the loose 
utterance of an ill-disciplined understanding, that 
imposes upon itself by words without knowledge? 
Be this.as it may, of one thing we may rest com- 
fortably assured, that whatever the dreamy and 
fantastic philosophy of which Dr. Strauss is under- 
stood to be a disciple, may pronounce on the sub- 
ject of miracles, a belief in these is not incompati- 
ble with ald philosophy, seeing it found place in the 
minds of such philosophers as Bacon, Newton, Leib- 
nitz, and Locke, to say nothing of others in more 
recent times, whose speculations will be found guid- 
ing the researches of generations to whom the 
school of Hegel will be known merely as one of 
the extravagances of the past. 

Once more, when Strauss appeals to “credible 
experience” as sustaining “his assertion, we must 
again ask to what it is that he refers. Does he 
mean the experience of the witnesses, or the ex- 
perience of an individual like himself, or the ex- 
perience of the race? If he intend the first, then 
has he uttered a mere idle truism, for, of course, 
unless their experience be “credible,” we cannot 
believe what they assert on the ground of that ex- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 197 


perience, as to do so would be self-contradictory. 
If he intend the second, then we must remind him 
that the experience of no individual whatever can 
be set up as the standard and test of all historical 
truth. If he intend the third (which I presume he 
does) then he has given us just the old sophism of 
Hume in a less ingenious shape than it appears in 
the writings of that great master of philosophical jug- 
glery. No miracle has ever taken place, says Dr. 
Strauss, because it accords with the experience of 
the race to say so. A miracle, says Hume, can 
never be proved to have happened, because the 
universal experience of the race is against it. The 
one position is but the repetition of the other, only 
with more of caution and logical precision on the 
part of the Scottish than on the part of the German 
sceptic; and one answer, which needs not to be a 
long one, will serve for both. 

In the jst place, this famous argument is, after 
all, but a begging of the question. It assumes in 
the premises what it pretends to prove in the con- 
clusion. For to affirm that miracles contradict 
universal experience, and to affirm that they have 
never occurred, are identical propositions. Noth- 
ing can be more plain than if at any time a miracle 
has been witnessed, such an event is not incompati- 
ble with universal experience, because it accords 
with the experience of those who witnessed it; so 
that to affirm that miracles are opposed to the ex- 
perience of the race, is just, in other words, to assert 


198 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


that no miracle has ever been witnessed. But this 
is the very thing to be proved, and, consequently, 
when thg opponent of miracles proposes to reject 
those narrated in the Gospels, on the ground that 
they contradict universal experience, his argument 
simply resolves itself into the identical proposition, 
“These miracles never happened, because miracles 
never have happened.” When, for instance, Strauss 
says “that narratives of angels and of devils, of 
their appearing in human shape, and interfering 
with human concerns, cannot possibly be received 
as historical,” because men have had no experience 
of such apparitions, his reasoning plainly is, that the 
narratives in question must be regarded as fictitious 
because they state what never happened; and when 
his reason for asserting that they never happened is 
required, he has no reply to give but just that the 
experience of the race is ignorant of them; which 
is, in other words, simply to affirm that no man ever 
witnessed such apparitions because no man ever 
witnessed them. When fairly analyzed, then, this 
appeal to the experience of the race as an argument 
against miracles, turns out to be one of the paltriest 
sophisms with which a dexterous word-master ever 
tried to cajole unsuspecting readers. 

But, secondly, this argument against the credi- 
bility of miracles is suicidal. It is an appeal to tes- 
timony for the purpose of proving that testimony is 
not to be trusted to. For, in adducing the universal 
experience of the race, the infidel adduces a crite- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 199 


rion, the whole solidity of which rests upon testi- 
mony, inasmuch as no man can possibly ascertain 
the experience of other men in all ages and in all 
places, but by testimony. Can anything, then, be 
more preposterous than to bring forward this for 
the purpose of setting aside statements which rest 
upon the very same kind of evidence on which this 
criterion itself is built? The miraculous events of 
our Saviour’s history are certified to us by testimony 
of the highest and most unimpeachable kind; but 
the infidel says he must reject them because no tes- 
timony can establish assertions which do not fall in 
with what testimony informs us is the experience of 
the race. According to this, testimony is adequate 
to the establishing of the rule, but it is impotent to 
establish the exception. We may reasonably ac- 
cept testimony, to prove that the laws of nature 
were the same in Judea eighteen hundred years ago 
as they are in this country at the present day; but 
we must not accept testimony, even of the most co- 
gent kind, to prove that cases did occur in which, 
for great and necessary purposes, certain of these 
laws were temporarily suspended by the power of 
God. Can anything be more capricious than this? 
Why should we believe the one thing on testimony, 
and not the other? Is it because the former accords 
with our own experience, while the latter does not? 
If this be said, it will show that after all it is not 
the universal experience of the race, but his own 
experience, or, at any rate, that of his own age and 


200 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


country, which the infidel would set up as the eri- 
terion by which alone historical credibility is to be 
tested. He, in fact, proposes to accept or reject 
testimony just as it affirms or contradicts what he 
already knows from the experience of himself and 
those around him. To a proposal so unreasonable 
in itself, and so opposed to all the interests of 
knowledge, no man of intelligence can give his 
assent. 

From these, which may be regarded as the more 
philosophical of the objections against the credi- 
bility of miracles, I pass to one of a more practical 
nature, which has recently been much urged as 
affecting more particularly the narratives of the 
four evangelists. I allude to that which bases an 
argument from the rejection of these narratives on 
the alleged discrepancies which exist among them. 
“ An account,” says Strauss, “which shall be re- 
garded as historically valid, must neither be incon- 
sistent with itself, nor in contradiction with other 
accounts.” This is one of the canons which that 
writer lays down at the outset of his attack upon 
the Gospels, as furnishing criteria by which we 
should be guided in judging of their historical 
veracity. Every one, however, must see that as 
thus enunciated by him, it is utterly useless, from 
the vagueness of the terms in which it is expressed. 
Before we can even try to apply it, we must have it 
brought into a more definite shape—we must know 
precisely what is meant by a narrative being “con- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 201 


sistent with itself,’ and especially we must know 
what “other accounts” are to be compared with it 
as tests of its credibility. When it is said that “a 
narrative, to be historically valid, must not be in- 
consistent with itself,” the demand may have refer- 
ence either to consistency of opinion, or to consistency 
of representation, or to consistency of statement, or 
to consistency of style; and it is easy to see that the 
worth of the canon as a test of historical validity 
would be estimated very differently, according as 
one or other of these significations was adopted. 
An historian may not be a man of very settled 
opinions, and yet he may be a most faithful narra- 
tor of facts. A writer who is fond of presenting his 
subject pictorially, may not always preserve har- 
mony and consistency in his pictures, and yet the 
general truthfulness of his narrative be very little 
affected thereby. In a lengthened work, the author 
may have failed to preserve throughout perfect uni- 
formity of style and manner, and yet this, instead 
of impeaching his credibility, may rather confirm 
it, as it may be the result of his fidelity in follow- 
ing the sources from which his materials are drawn. 
The only case in which want of consistency can be 
urged against the credibility of an author, is where 
he has indulged in statements on points of fact 
which contradict each other. Of course, where a 
witness first says one thing, and then affirms the 
opposite, his testimony must, in that particular, be 
rejected; and it cannot be denied, that in such a 


202 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


case a general suspicion would be cast over his 
whole statements, as those of a man who could 
either deliberately affirm what he knew to be false, 
or was too ignorant or indolent to discriminate the 
real from the fictitious. In this sense, then, but in 
this sense only, is the canon a sound one, that a 
narrative, to possess historical validity, must not be 
inconsistent with itself. : 

The other part of Strauss’s canon is, “that if the 
narrative is to be regarded as historically: valid, it 
must not be in contradiction with other accounts.” 
This is, if possible, still less definite than the former. 
“Other accounts!” What other accounts? The 
author surely cannot mean, any other accounts; for 
this, if applied generally, would expose the most 
truthful history that was ever written to discredit, 
if it so happened that some nameless chronicler or 
some party scribbler had given a different version of 
the story. He can only mean such other accounts 
as possess egual claims to credibility with the one 
in question. But even in this case his criterion 
requires to be greatly modified and conditioned. If 
we would proceed wisely, and on solid ground, in 
this matter, we must attend to such considerations 
as the following : 1. If there are only two accounts 
of the same transaction, and the one of these con- 
tradicts the other, the only conclusion to which we 
are entitled to come is, that one or other of them 
must be false; we have no right to reject both as 
not worthy of belief; one of them may be true; and 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 203 


our business is to hold the point in reserve until 
some further evidence shall enable us to determine 
it. 2. If there are more accounts than two, and if 
the majority concur in their statements, the fair 
presumption is, that the fact happened as stated 
by them, and unless there be circumstances in the 
position, the opportunities, or the character of the 
parties, which go to counterbalance this presumption, 
we must receive this statement as in all probability 
the correct one; at any rate, we are not entitled, 
merely on the ground of such a difference, to reject 
the whole as fictitious. 38. A distinction must be 
made between the essentials of a statement, and the 
circumstantial or accidental details of it; and when 
the witnesses concur in the former, we cannot allow 
their differing more or less in the latter, to cast suspi- 
cion on their statement as wholly fabulous. 4. When 
lengthened narratives from independent witnesses 
agree in the main, the fact that they differ from each 
other, though it be irreconcilably, on one or two 
points, cannot be justifiably held as destroying the 
entire historical validity of their narratives. 
To these considerations I am persuaded every 
man of intelligence and sobriety will yield assent, 
as absolutely necessary to be taken into account be- 
fore we apply any such criterion of historical validity 
as that on which Dr. Strauss has proposed to set 
aside the credibility of the four evangelists. With- 
out such qualifications this criterion would bring the 
entire historical literature of the world into danger 


204 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


of being consigned to the regions of romance and 
fable; for it seems to be incident to man that in nar- 
rating historical events, hardly a case occurs in which 
two or more writers, however candid and intelligent, 
are found perfectly and absolutely to agree in every 
particular. Indeed, so much is this the case, that 
such agreement would only beget a suspicion that 
the concurrent narrators were not independent wit- 
nesses, but had borrowed from some common source. 

When the proposed criterion is thus brought into 
a shape in which it can be fairly applied to historical 
writings generally, there can be no objection to its 
being applied with as much rigour as may be deemed 
necessary to the narratives of the four evangelists. 
These claim to be authentic narratives of facts, and 
they must abide the tests by which the historical 
truthfulness of all such narratives is to be ascer- 
tained. If it be found that they cannot abide it— 
if the discrepancies between them be such as to cast 
suspicions upon the veracity of their entire statements 
—or, if what they agree in stating be contradicted ° 
by the concurrent testimony of contemporary writ- 
ers, then let such an award be given against them as 
would be given against any other historical writings 
similarly circumstanced. But let them not be con- 
demned upon a canon which is founded in no solid 
reason, and which would go to invalidate all histori- 
cal writings, both ancient and modern. 

Now, that there are certain apparent discrepancies 
in the narratives of the four evangelists, is at once 


OHARAOTER OF CHRIST. 205 


admitted; and it is also admitted that some of their 
statements do not appear to accord with the accounts 
of other credible writers. But I deny that these are 
of such a kind as to impair their validity as historical 
documents. For, in the jirst place, of these discrep- 
ancies many are only apparent, and are removed by 
a more careful or extended scrutiny of the narra- 
tives; 2dly. Of the statements in which the evan- 
gelists differ from contemporary writers, some are of 
a kind in which they must be regarded as being of 
much higher authority than those from whom they 
differ, while others relate to matters regarding 
which our information is so imperfect, that it is more 
than probable that, were all the facts known, the 
difference would entirely disappear, more especially 
as on several points a more accurate examination 
of documents has proved that the statement of the 
evangelists is undoubtedly correct. 8dly. Of the 
discrepancies between the evangelists themselves, 
none are of such a kind as to affect the substance 
of the narrative, but relate exclusively to mere in- 
cidental details ; so that even where they cannot be 
removed, the historical validity of the narrative re- 
mains unimpeached. In a question, then, relating 
merely to the credibility of the documents, the exist- 
ence of such discrepancies cannot be held as any 
reason for withholding our confidence from these 
narratives as a whole.* 


* Apparet nos non debere arbitrari mentiri quemquam, si 
pluribus rem, quam audierunt vel viderunt, reminiscentibus, non 


206 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


I have now gone through the objections which 
are commonly urged against the authenticity of the 
narratives of miraculous events contained in the 
Gospels, especially as these objections appear in the 
more recent productions of the infidel school. With- 
out entering into minute details, I am not aware of 
having passed over any point of importance in these 
objections. The result has been, I trust, to evince 
that they possess no real force; that they are either 


eodum modo atque eisdem verbis, eadam tamen res fuerit expli- 
cata, ut sive mutatur ordo verborum; sive alia pro aliis, que 
tamen idem valeant, verba proferantur; sive aliquid quod vel 
recordanti non occurrit, vel quod ex aliis que dicuntur possit 
intelligi minus dicatur; sive aliorum que magis dicere statuit 
narrandorum gratia, ut congruus temporis modus sufficiat, ali- 
quid sibi non totum explicandum, sed ex parte tangendum quis- 
que suscipiat—AveustTinE, De consensu Evangell. 1. ii, c. 12. In 
this passage the great bishop of Hippo specifies four cases in 
which discrepancies may occur among narrators of the same 
event, without their credibility being thereby impaired, namely, 
1. Where a different arrangement of words is followed; 2. Where 
different words of the same import are used; 3. Where something 
is omitted because it did not recur to the memory of the nar- 
rator, or may be gathered from something he has narrated; 
4. Where, for the sake of narrating in due order of time, such 
things as his plan led him chiefly to dwell upon, each has refrained 
from fully explaining something, and contented himself with par- 
tially touching it. Under one or other of these, almost all the dis- 
crepancies of the evangelists may be ranked. But even supposing 
their discrepancies far beyond such as these, who would, on the 
ground of this, adjudge them to be liars? or what events could 
stand such a test of credibility? Comp. Whately’s Historic 
Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and the valuable illus- 
trations collected by Tholuck in the concluding chapter of his 
Glaubwirdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte, of which a con- 
densed view is given by Dr. Beard in his Voices of the Churches, 
p-. 164. ff. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 207 


mere vague surmises, or palpable fallacies, or unfair 
assertions ; and that, consequently, they ought not 
to be allowed to stand for a moment in the way of 
our yielding full credit to the miraculous portions 
of the Evangelical History. 


ET: 


I have thus established one point in my argu- 
ment from the miracles narrated in the history of 
Christ, namely, that such events actually did occur 
as narrated. I have now to show that the occur- 
rence of such events, under the circumstances in 
which they did occur, affords evidence that the 
religion of Jesus Christ is divine. Here, the first 
point to be cleared, respects the meaning of the 
term miraculous, as applied to these events. 

“To discourse of miracles,” says Locke, ‘“ without 
defining what one means by the word, ‘ miracle,’ is 
to make a show, but in effect to talk of nothing.”* 
That I may not fall under this censure, I shall en- 
deavour to furnish a precise answer to the question, 
What is a miracle ? 

To those who would conduct their investigations 
on scientific principles, this question resolves itself 
into an inquiry into the nature of those events 
recorded in Scripture which are styled miraculous. 
As it is not from miracles in the abstract that we 
are to argue the truth of Christianity, but from these 
concrete facts in the sacred history, and especially 


“ Disc. on Miracles, Works, vol. iii, p. 451, folio edition. 


208 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


those of them which are found in the history of 
Jesus Christ, it is not by any a priori definition of 
miracle that we ought to bind ourselves, but only by 
such a one as shall be given us by a fair illation 
from the phenomena. 

Now, when we examine the miracles recorded in 
the Gospels, we shall find that, in respect of the 
miraculous element (or call it, for the present, only 
the wonderful element) in them, they may be ar- 
ranged into three classes. The jirst of these will 
comprehend such acts as the feeding of the multi- 
tudes in the wilderness, the curing of blindness by 
the application of saliva to the eyes, the raising of 
the ruler’s daughter by taking hold of her hand, &e. 
In these we see means used, in themselves more or 
less adapted to produce the end attained; and yet 
the whole transaction strikes us as marvellous. 
Why? Because we know that according to the 
ordinary course of nature the means used were 
quite inadequate, i the cirewmstances, to produce 
the resultant effect. The effect was not one beyond 
being attained by the use of means; the means 
suited for the attainment of it are such as Christ 
used ; but, in the cases specified, the disproportion 
between the means used and the result attained is 
so immense, that we are forced to conclude that 
some power, far beyond what resides in them, must 
have been at work to produce it, and that this 
power must be superhuman, for that it is perfectly 
certain no man can produce an effect by means so 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 909° 


immensely disproportionate. Here, then, a miracle 
means a sensible effect produced in connexion with 
the use of means, of themselves so utterly insufficient 
to produce it, that we are constrained to refer it toa 
superhuman power, either resident in the performer, 
or acting through him. 

The second class consists of such acts as the heal- 
ing of inveterate diseases by a word, the curing of 
persons at a distance instantaneously, &c. These 
acts, in themselves, are such as may take place 
through natural causes; but as performed by our 
Lord, in the cases recorded, they become marvel- 
lous, because they were performed without the use 
of natural causes,—there being no causal connexion 
between the utterance of a word and the cure of a 
severe malady, especially where the party cured is 
at a distance from the party operating the cure. 
Here the effect is, of necessity, ascribed by us to 
some power residing in, or operating through the 
person who produces it; and as we know that no 
such power resides in ordinary men, we ascribe to 
this person something extraordinary, something 
superhuman. A miracle, then, in this case, is a 
sensible effect produced without the use of means, 
and arguing, therefore, superhuman power in the 
party performing it. 

The third class includes such acts as-the raising 
of the dead, the becoming suddenly invisible to a 
multitude of persons, and passing unseen through 


the midst of them, the walking upon the sea, the 
14 


210 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


casting out of devils, &c. These acts strike us at 
once as marvellous, because they are such as never 
are produced by natural causes under any circum- 
stances; and not only so, but before they can be 
produced, natural causes which we know to be con- 
tinually operating must be suspended, in order that 
they may be produced. In this case, then, we not. 
only have a conviction of the superhuman, but also 
of the supernatural; and a miracle beconies a sensi- 
ble effect produced by supernatural power. 

We have thus arrived at the conception of three 
distinct kinds of miracles; it remains to inquire, 
What is the element common to them all, in virtue 
of which they are marvellous? And, in answer to 
this, it is obvious to reply, that the common element 
lies in this, that all are brought to pass by a power 
not existing in the ordinary course of nature. In 
miracles of the first and second class, this power is 
so manifested that we are constrained to regard it 
as superhuman ; and, in miracles of the third class, 
we pronounce it not only superhuman, but swper- 
natural. 

Proceeding on these grounds, we are entitled to 
define a miracle on the lowest possible estimate that 
can be taken of it, as an act which takes place out 
of the ordinary course of nature, and which is at- 
tributable only to a superhuman energy exerted for 
its production. 

But if a miracle be the production of an agency 
which is superhuman, it will follow, that it is the 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. O11 


product of an agency which is divine. For, 1. All 
miracles proceed upon the assumption that there is 
a God. This is taken for granted on the part of 
the performer of the miracle, and it is acknowledged 
on the part of those for whose conviction it is per- 
formed. Deny this, and the miracle becomes useless 
for the purpose for which it is adduced. “There 
never was,” says Bacon, “a miracle wrought by God 
to*convert an atheist, because the light of nature 
might have led him to confess a God; but miracles 
are designed to convert idolaters and the supersti- 
tious who have acknowledged a deity, but erred 
in his adoration; because no light of nature ex- 
tends to declare the will and true worship of God.”* 
2. The Biblical miracles were all performed in the 
name of the one living and true God. They were 
a solemn appeal to him to give his testimony on 
the side of truth. Now, it is possible that such an 
appeal, if rash and unauthorized, might remain wn- 
answered ; but if we believe that God is, we cannot 
for a moment believe that he would allow any of his 
creatures, good or bad, to answer an appeal made 
to him om such a way as to sanction falsehood and 
confirm delusion. When, therefore, such an appeal 
zs answered by the occurrence of some superhuman 
effect, the conclusion to which we cannot but come 
is, that the agent of that effect is God. But, 3. 
Apart from the Bible, what do we know of any 
intelligent powers between man and God? It is 


* Advancement of Learning, book iii, c, 2. 


212 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


only from its revelations that we become acquainted 
with the existence of angels and spirits; for though 
tradition or conjecture may have impressed men’s 
minds with the feeling that some such intermediate 
beings may be, nothing like knowledge of this can 
exist until the Bible has been received and read. 
But this presumes that the Bible has already estab- 
lished its claims; and consequently, nothing can be 
more preposterous, while these claims are yet in dis- 
pute, than to introduce any such element of doubt 
into the investigation. Such an element must in 
that case be purely conjectural; and it is a transgres- 
sion of all sound principles of investigation to make 
use of conjecture in such an inquiry. One of the 
very first laws of the inductive method is that “no 
other causes of things should be admitted than such 
as are both real and sufficient to explain the phenom- 
ena.”* This is Newton’s rule, which he laid down 
for himself, and which all succeeding philosophers 
have concurred in lauding and following. ‘This is,” 
says Dr. Reid, “a golden rule; it is the true and 
proper test by which what is sound and solid in 
philosophy may be distinguished from what is hol- 
low and vain.”+ In obedience to this rule, Newton 
refused all conjectural solutions of the phenomena 
presented to his observation; contented rather to 
remain in ignorance than to go beyond the region 

*Causas rerum naturalium, non plures admitti debere, quam 
que et vere sint, et earum phenomenis explicandis sufficiant.— 


Newton, Princ., lib. iii, sub. init. 
{ On the Intellectual Powers, Essay i, c. 3. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 913 


of real causes for an explanation. “I frame not 
hypotheses,” is his simple and dignified reason for 
refusing to attempt to assign a cause for gravitation, 
the effects of which he was the first accurately to 
describe; “I frame not hypotheses .. . for hypoth- 
eses, whether metaphysical, or physical, or of occult 
qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experi- 
mental philosophy.”* In the spirit of this greatest 
of philosophers, and in obedience to the rule he has 
so perspicuously laid down, we must denounce all 
attempts to account for a miracle by referring it to 
the agency of angels or devils, as irrelevant and 
unphilosophical. A miracle comes before us on the 
platform of natural theology ; there, and there alone 
can we fairly encounter it; and as there we know 
of no intelligent beings but man and God, when a 
man presents himself to us and does, in the name of 
God, what we know no mere man can do, the only 
conclusion open to us is to admit that God is work- 
ing by him. To ascribe the miracle to God is to 
assign a real and adequate cause for the phenome- 
non: “to raise an argument or answer an objection 
from hidden powers of nature or magic is,” as that 
acutest of thinkers, Bishop Berkeley, has said, “ grop- 
ing in the dark.”+ With the former conclusion true 


* Hypotheses non fingo. . . . Hypotheses seu metaphysice, 
seu physics, seu qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanic in 
philosophia experimentali locum non habent.—Princ., lib. iii, 
prop. fin. 

+ Alciphron: or, The Minute Philosopher, dial. vi, vol. ii, p. 116. 
Lond., 1732. 


914 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


philosophy rests satisfied, nor will she accept any 
other as legitimate.* 

Even supposing, then, that all we could say of 
the miracles of Christ is, that they indicate super- 
human power, we should be constrained to refer 
them to God, in whose name they were performed, 
as the doer of them. But a large number—the 
majority of Christ’s miracles, were such as to in- 
dicate not merely superhuman but supernatural 


*T confess I am surprised to find such a writer as Dr. Chalmers 
contending that “it does appear ultra vires on the part of man to 
affirm of every miracle that, because a miracle, it must proceed 
from the immediate finger or fiat of God. Is it,’ he goes on to 
ask, “in the spirit either of Butler or Bacon, to make this confident 
affirmation ?”’—Evidences of Christianity, Works, vol. ili, p. 378. 
Now, surely when we have excluded all real causes that we know, 
which are inadequate to produce the result, and have illated a 
real cause which is adequate to it, we have proceeded with strict 
and punctual closeness not only in the spirit, but after the rule 
of Bacon. It is those who conjecture a cause which is not known 
to be real or to be adequate, who sin against the spirit and law of 
the experimental philosophy. ‘“ But,” says Dr. Chalmers, “that 
very Bible, which stands pillared on its own miraculous evidences, 
affirms the existence of such beings, [powerful and wicked spirits, | 
and actuated, too, by a mischievous policy, the object of which is 
to enthral and destroy our species.” P. 375. And he contends, 
that having this information, we are bound to consider how this 
affects the claims of miracles to be products of divine agency. 
Now, I have only to ask in reply, whether we are bound to do this 
before or after the Bible has been pillared on its own miraculous 
evidence? Not after, surely, for this would be to invalidate the 
very evidence on which we say the Bible stands pillared; not be- 
fore, certainly, for until we have set the Bible on its pillar we 
have no right to ask any one to rest upon what it reveals. 
Obviously in either case our reasoning would involve a fallacy. 
It follows, that if neither before nor after is this to be done, then 
not at all. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 915 


power. They were acts which no being, subject to 
the laws of nature, and bound to obey them in the 
producing of sensible results, could have performed. 
However gifted any creature may be, and whatever 
intelligence he may possess of the occult powers of 
nature, there are certain bounds in this department 
which we know no mere creature can pass. We 
know that he cannot produce a natural result with- 
out the use of natural means. We know that he 
cannot suspend any of the fixed laws that regulate 
the events of nature, without calling into operation 
some sensible agency by which such laws are over- 
powered. A skilful chemist may, by certain appli- 
cations, render his finger insensible to the action of 
fire; but no chemist can, without adhibiting such 
applications, merely by the word of his mouth, com- 
pel fire to refrain from burning. An experienced 
physician may detect signs of life, and by appropri- 
ate measures restore animation to a body apparently 
dead; but no physician can, merely by a touch of 
his hand or an utterance of his voice, recall to life 
one who is really dead. When such things are done, 
we know and are sure that the finger of God has 
been there. There may be much in nature that we 
are ignorant of; there may be laws regulating the 
world of matter, of which we have no information 
or suspicion; but with the fullest acknowledgment 
of our possible ignorance in this respect, we never- 
theless take our stand with unhesitating confidence 
on what we are not ignorant of, and reason from 


216 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


that. I do not know all that the progress of science 
shall enable men to do;¢but I turn to the raising of 
Lazarus, or the curing of the paralytic, and I say, 
Science will never enable any man to do that. Man 
is but the minister and interpreter of nature ;* he can 
command her only by obeying her.t Show me a 
man who commands without obeying; show me one 
who suspends and counteractsnature by a word; and 
without needing to know anything beyond the fact. 
I bow my head and say, “Of a truth Gop is there.” 

The conclusion at which we arrive, then, is that 
the miracles of Jesus Christ were such acts as only 
divine power can accomplish. But'as these acts did 
not differ in essence from the other miracles recorded 
in Scripture, we may generalize the definition so as 
to embrace all the miracles, and say, that a miracle 
as a sensible effect produced by the immediate power 
of God.t 

IV. 


Our Lord, then, while on earth performed many 
works of such a kind as only divine power can 
accomplish :—What bearing has this on the pre- 
tensions of his religion to be accepted as true? 

Now, the first thing to be looked at here is, what 
it is that a miracle is competent to prove. On this 
point it is the more important that we should seek 
precise conceptions, because both on the side of be- 

* Homo Naturse Minister ac Interpres.—Bacon, Nov. Org., Aph. 1. 


ft Natura non nisi parendo vincitur.—IJbid., Aph. 3. 
[See Appendix, Note D, 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. OT. 


lievers and on the side of. infidels, there has been 
considerable confusion of thought, and, consequently, 
of reasoning regarding it. 

. Let it be understood, then, that a miracle of 
whatever kind, however striking or however strange, 
cannot afford direct proof of the truth of any doc- 
trine or statement. Infidels have often asked with 
a sneer, What connexion is there between power 
and truth? or, How can the mere display of super- 
natural power prove the truth of any position in 
theology or any fact in history? Now, the proper 
answer to this is, that there is no direct connexion 
between truth and power whereby the former may 
receive immediate support from the latter, nor is a 
miracle offered as if it were thereby imtended to 
affirm such a connexion. What a miracle is de- 
signed to prove, and what alone it is, per se, com- 
petent to prove, is not the truth of the doctrine, but 
the diwine commission of the teacher of that doctrine. 
The message comes to us as from God. The truth 
of its contents is thus avowedly rested on the divine 
veracity; and what the miracle is adduced to prove 
is, that the divine veracity is actually pledged to the 
doctrine. The connexion between the miracle and 
the doctrine is analogous to the connexion between 
the signature of a letter and the truthfulness of what 
that letter contains. The signature, if genuine, 
proves only that the letter was written by a certain 
party; the truthfulness of its contents must depend 
upon the character of the writer. In like manner, 


918 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


the miracle, if real, proves that the person who per- 
forms it has come from God; and on the character 
of God—his unerring wisdom and perfect veracity 
—rests the truth of what that person teaches. As 
miracle is offered as the sign-manual of God, as the 
peculiar and unforgeable token that God is there; 
and it is offered as the proper and the only proper 
evidence that the message, to support which it has 
been performed, is a message authorized, sanctioned, 
and verified by God. 

It is of importance, in reference to this part of 
the subject, to keep in mind that it is only as a 
teacher comes to promulgate something new, that 
he needs, or can with propriety appeal to, miracles 
in proof of his divine commission. A man who 
only enforces doctrines or institutions already ac- 
credited, starts from the point to which it is the de- 
sign of miracles to bring men. A miracle is always 
prospective, never retrospective in its sanction. Thus, 
it was no part of the design of the miracles wrought 
by Christ to authenticate the commission of Moses 
or any of the ancient prophets; nor was it the ob- 
ject of any of the Biblical miracles to procure re- 
spect to the doctrines of natural religion. The 
miracle-worker invariably takes his stand upon the 
ground of what is already accepted by those whom 
he would teach, and it is for the sake of his new, 
his peculiar institutions alone, that he offers miracu- 
lous evidence of his divine commission. It may to 
some, perhaps, appear that this is too obvious to be 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 919 


insisted on; and yet, from overlooking it, much 
confusion of thought and reasoning has been intro- 
duced into the discussion of this subject. To this 
source, I conceive, may be traced the opinion con- 
tended for even by such men as Samuel Clarke, 
Hoadly, Chalmers, and others, that before we can 
receive a miracle as evidence of a divine commis- 
sion, we must be satisfied that the doctrine it is 
adduced to authenticate is such as God would sanc- 
tion. Now, if by this is meant the new doctrine 
brought by the teacher, the opinion is manifestly 
fallacious ; for it rests upon a mere begging of the 
question, the doctrine being first assumed in order 
to authenticate the miracle, for the sake of making 
the miracle afterward authenticate the doctrine. 
If, on the other hand, all that is meant is, that the 
messenger must acknowledge the fundamental and 
universally accredited doctrines of natural religion, 
(and this is what the more exact thinkers who have 
embraced this opinion do mean,*) then it becomes 
clearly irrelevant to the subject on hand; for as the 
design of miracles is in no case to authenticate the 
doctrines of natural religion, these being invariably 
and of necessity presupposed in every case of mira- 
cle, it is a mere waste of words to contend that the 
miracle derives any portion of its use or weight as 
a miracle from the accordanee with these of the 


* See Clarke’s Discourse concerning the Unchangeable Obliga- 
tions of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the 
Christian Revelation, p. 230, 10th edition, 


220 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


doctrine taught by him who performs it. Surely if 
the doctrines of natural religion form no part of the 
message which the miracle is wrought to sanction, 
it must be plain to all that it cannot be from the 
relation of the teacher to these, that any portion of 
the validity of his miracle is derived! As respects 
the Bible, it is undoubtedly true that its agreement 
with the principles of natural religion and morality 
forms part of the general evidence in its favour; 
but it is not on this that the evidence of the mira- 
cles depends; these form a separate and independ- 
ent branch of evidence, and no more rest upon the 
former than does any other part of that cumula- 
tive proof by which the claims of the Bible are 
substantiated. 

The chief use of miracles, then, is to authenticate 
the party performing them as one divinely commis- 
sioned to teach men. They doubtless, besides this, 
serve to attract attention and prepare men’s minds 
to be impressed with the lesson which the teacher 
is about to unfold ;* and, as in the case of the Lord’s 
miracles, they may also set forth as in symbol the 
peculiar character and tendency of the doctrines to 
be taught :+ but their supreme design and use is to 
secure for the messenger the homage of men as one 


* As Foster quaintly says, “ Having rung the great bell of the 
universe, the sermon to follow must be extraordinary.” —Life, 
vol. i, p. 173. 

{ See Lawson’s Sermons on the Miracles of Jesus Christ, con- 
sidered as illustrative of the Doctrines of the Gospel, Camb., 1835. 
Wardlaw on Miracles, p. 303. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 921 
* 


sent to them from God. Let us apply this to the 
case before us. — 

Our Lord Jesus Christ appeared on the earth as 
the teacher of a religion which, in many of its as- 
pects and institutes, was new. It was needful, 
therefore, if his religion was to be accepted by men 
as divine, that he should perform miracles in proof 
that he had come from God. Now, we find from 
his own words that it was with this specific design 
that he did the mighty works which the evangelists 
have recorded. ‘The works,” said he, “that I do 
bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me.... 
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe 
the works: that ye may know and believe that the 
Father is in me, and I in him.” John x, 25, 37, 38. 
No words could more plainly describe the design 
of our Lord’s miracles than these. He did the works 
to prove the divinity of his commission, and me- 
diately the divinity of his instructions. And so 
they were understood by those who witnessed and 
fairly construed them. “Rabbi,” said Nicodemus, 
speaking in the name of the more candid portion 
of his countrymen, “we know that thou art a 
teacher come from God: for no man can do these 
miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” 
John iii, 2. 

The conclusion which the ruler of the Jews enun- 
ciates in this passage, is one which will commend 
itself to the common sense of the race. Assuming 


229, » CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


the divine existence—assuming that this universe 
is the creature of God, and is sustained by his power 
and wisdom—and assuming that, being benevolent 
as well as wise and powerful, it is highly probable 
that God will convey his will to men in the form 
of a message; what, we may ask, is the kind of evi- 
dence which would furnish valid proof that any 
given message had actually come from Him?— 
what kind of sign would it be proper for him to 
give and for us to receive in order that we might 
be convinced that such was really the case? Te 
this question I think every man’s common sense 
will be ready to answer, The proper evidence would 
be for the bearer of the message to do something 
which we are quite sure only God’s power can 
effect. Besides this, there is really no other way in 
which he could directly convince us that God was 
with him. He might be bold in assertion, ingenious 
in argument, persuasive in eloquence; but all this 
would not convince us that he spoke the words of 
God, unless he submitted to our senses some works 
which only one with whom God is can do. “ Rev- 
elation,” says a distinguished Italian philosopher 
recently deceased, “presupposes divine inspiration 
in its preachers. Now, this being on the one hand 
a psychological, an internal fact, and on the other 
a supernatural one common to very few, its reality 
cannot be shown so as to be credited, except by the 
aid of other facts equally supernatural, but out- 
ward, public, and apprehensible, mediately or im- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 223 


mediately, by all men. Hence it is apparent that 
adequate proof of a divine revelation cannot consist 
in ideas, because natural ideas cannot demonstrate 
a fact above nature such as is the extraordinary 
infusion of incomprehensible truths; nor in natural 
facts which are incompetent to certify and place on 
a solid basis a succession invisible, and of a different 
_ kind; but that it must emerge from supernatural 
events which shall express sensibly and indubitably 
the internal correspondent fact, and so become signs 
of its reality.”* By this standard, then, may all 
pretensions to revelation be fairly tried. If the man 
can do the work—if he can give the proper sign, 
we cannot but admit his claims; if he shall be 
found unable to do any such work, we cannot but 
hold his pretensions unproved, however otherwise 
supported. 

Now, a miracle is such a work. It is something 
which only the power of God can effect. Hence, 
whenever a miracle is performed by a human be- 
ing, it becomes a sign that God is with the party 
performing it; and as God would not lend his sane- 
tion to one who was not commissioned and qualified 
to convey to men his will, we pass, by a very brief 
but firm transition, to the conclusion that a message 
so sanctioned must be divinely true. 

This, then, was what our Lord did. He wrought 


* Gioberti, Teorica del Sovranaturale, o sia Discorso sulla con- 
venienza della Religione rivelata colla mente umana e col pro- 
gresso civile della nazioni, § 131. Torino, 1850. 


294. CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


miracles in proof of his divine commission, and 
when any challenged his pretensions, it was to his 
works that he referred them for evidence that they 
were just and true. This was treating men like 
intelligent and reasoning creatures. It was asking 
them to believe on evidence which commends itself 
to the common sense of mankind as the only evi- 
dence adequate to prove what he submitted for 
their belief. — 

As those, therefore, whose belief reposes upon 
evidence, and who would hold it alike unworthy 
of a rational being to believe without evidence, 
and to refuse belief when the proper and due 
evidence is afforded, it becomes us to recognise in 
Jesus Christ a divinely-accredited teacher—to re- 
ceive his doctrines as holy and true—and to hail 
the religion he has taught as bearing on it the 
stamp and authority of Heaven. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 295 


CHAPTER II. 


ARGUMENT FROM THE PREDICTIONS UTTERED BY CHRIST 
AS RECORDED BY THE EVANGELISTS. 


From the consideration of our Lord’s personal char- 
acter and of his public appearance as a worker of 
miracles, I proceed to consider the aspect in which 
his biographers have presented him as a Prophet 
or Predicter of future events. 

In the reports which they give to us of the say- 
ings and discourses of their Master, the evangelists 
have preserved to us a great number of statements 
made by him of a predictive kind. These are not 
delivered with the formality of oracles, but occur 
in the course of conversations which he is reported 
to have held with those around him, or form part 
of more lengthened addresses to his disciples or to 
the multitude. A large portion of them are of a 
personal nature, having reference to his own pros- 
pects or those of his disciples, and as these un- 
doubtedly were, for the most part at least, recorded 
after the events to which they relate occurred, while 
some of them are of such a kind that the fact of 
their fulfilment cannot be proved apart from the 
testimony of the individuals who record them, they 


are not such as we can successfully use in an argu- 
15 


226 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


ment like the present, however valuable they may 
be for other purposes. Besides these, however, 
there are several distinct predictions by our Lord 
recorded in the Gospels to which this objection will 
not apply; for they were recorded before the event, 
and are of such a kind that we can both give rea- 
sons for believing that the prediction must have 
been uttered by him, and show, from independent 
sources, that the event to which it relates actually 
occurred. Confining ourselves to these, we are in 
circumstances to pursue a fair and legitimate line 
of argument from this recorded feature of our Sav- 
iour’s history to the truth of that religion whichi 
bears his name. 

In endeavouring to develop this argument, I shall 
pursue the following course :— 

1. I shall select a few of our Lord’s predictions 
of the class referred to, and show, from authentic 
sources, the correspondence between the alleged pre- 
diction and the undoubted facts of history which it 
is said to have foretold. 

9. I shall show reason for our believing that 
Jesus Christ actually did deliver these predictions 
as recorded by his historians. And, 

8. I shall urge the evidence accruing from this 
source in favour of the divinity of Christianity. 


iF 


In selecting from our Lord’s predictions, it is not 
necessary for our present purpose that I should ad- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 297 


duce more than a very few; for the strength of the 
argument from prophecy does not depend so much 
on the nwmber of the predictions, as on the charac- 
ter of the announcement itself, and the amount of 
correspondence between it and the event by which 
It is said to be fulfilled. I shall, therefore, content 
myself with citing only three classes of our Lord’s 
predictions. 

The first relates to the success of his cause in the 
world. Respecting this he foretold, in the plain- 
est terms, that the Church or society which he had 
established was founded on a rock, and that the 
gates of hell should never prevail against it. Matt. 
xvi, 18. Now, it is of no concern to us at present . 
to inquire what it is that Christ in this passage de- 
nominates a rock—whether Peter, or Peter’s con- 
fession that he was the Christ, the Son of God, or 
Christ himself; whichever of these we adopt as the 
true reference, the important point remains, that 
that on which Christ declares his Church to be 
founded is a rock—something solid, stable, and per- 
manent. As little does it concern us to determine 
precisely here what our Lord intended by “the gates 
of hell;” for all are agreed that by this designation 
he must have meant the most violent and dangerous 
form of opposition that could be brought against 
his cause. Our Lord’s meaning, then, is for our 
present purpose sufliciently determined. He here 
foretells, while as yet his Church had barely an 
existence on the earth, that he had placed it on so 


228 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


solid and enduring a basis, that the most threatening 
forms of opposition should not succeed in overthrow- 
ing it. 

But not only did Christ foretell the stability of his 
Church, he announced also its world-wide diffusion. 
“The gospel,” said he, “shall be preached among 
all nations.” Matt. xxiv, 14. An act of confidence 
and kindness done to him by a nameless female, 
he declared should be spoken of for a memorial of 
her “wheresoever the gospel should be preached 
throughout the whole world.” Matt. xxvi, 13. The 
kingdom of heaven he likened to a grain of mus- 
tard-seed, which, though the smallest of all seeds, 
when it is sown in the earth becometh greater than 
all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; and to 
leaven, which a woman hid in three measures of 
meal until the whole was leavened. Matt. xiii, 31-33. 
And in full accordance with such predictions was 
the commission which he gave to his disciples to 
evangelize and to baptize all nations; at the same 
time assuring them of success, for he should be with 
them even unto the end of the world. Matthew 
xxviii, 19; Mark xvi, 15; Luke xxiv, 47. 

Such are the anticipations which our Lord is rep- 
resented by the evangelists as having taught his 
followers to cherish concerning the future success of 
his cause ; and so far as the experience of the Church 
has yet gone, the event has amply justified the 
expectation. From very humble beginnings, the 
Church of Christ speedily grew into a large and 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 229 


widely-extended body; and in spite of the most 
violent opposition from many quarters, and the 
severest trials of every kind, it has survived to the 
present day. We cannot, indeed, say that the pre- 
dictions quoted have been fulfilled to their utmost 
extent; nor is this to be required, because as the 
period embraced by Christ within his announce- 
ments is commensurate with the duration of the 
world, it is only as the world verges toward its close 
that the entire fulfilment of such declarations can 
be looked for. But this we may say with confidence, 
that so far as things have already proceeded—so 
far as history has anything to say on this matter— 
the event has remarkably corresponded to the pre- 
diction. The Church, though assailed by the fierc- 
est persecution from without, and often betrayed by 
the foulest treason from within, has never ceased to 
exist on this earth since Christ planted it; and as, 
before the close of the apostolic age, it had spread 
into nearly every part of the then known world, 
so, in more recent times, it has advanced to such a 
degree that there is hardly a nation on the earth’s 
surface in whose speech the gospel is not preached ; 
and, in an age of many books, the book of all others 
most numerously printed, most widely diffused, most 
extensively read, and most elaborately commented 
upon, is the book containing the record of Christ’s 
life, and the development of Christ’s doctrine. 
Another class of predictions recorded by the evan- 
gelists, as uttered by our Lord, respects the events 


930 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


which were to transpire between his death and the 
destruction of Jerusalem. These, he intimated, 
would be of a very remarkable kind.* Many false 
Christs should arise, coming in his name, so as to 
deceive many. There should be wars and rumours 
of wars, and commotions; nation should rise against 
nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There 
should be famine, and pestilence, and earthquakes, 
_ and fearful sights and signs from heaven. And 
though he did not fix a precise date for the oc- 
currence of these, (which would not have been in 
accordance with the genius of true prophecy, for 
which a certain degree of vagueness’ and obscurity 
is necessary, that it may not, by too great precision 
of detail, be liable to the charge of having led to its 
own fulfilment,) yet he intimated that they would 
happen within the lifetime of some who heard him 
speak, and thatthey would precede and usher in the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. Now, with these predictions 
the events remarkably corresponded. 1. Shortly 
after our Lord’s ascension multitudes of impostors 
arose among the Jews, as we learn from their own 
historian Josephus, and from others, who pretended 
to be deliverers sent from God to his people, and 
who led away great numbers of the populace to 
their destruction. ‘The whole land,” Josephus tells 
us, “was overrun with magicians, seducers, and im- 
postors, who drew the people after them in multi- 


* Comp. Matt. xxiv, 24; Mark xiii, 22; Matt. ae 7; Mark 
xiii, 778" bake =515-9,-10) 15 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 931 


tudes into solitudes and deserts, to see the signs and 
miracles which they promised to show by the power 
of God.”* Among these he mentions especially an 
Egyptian false prophet, who led thirty thousand 
men into the desert; and Theudas, who persuaded 
many to take their goods, and follow him to the 
Jordan, which he promised to divide for them by 
the power of God, so that they should go over dry- 
shod. We read also of Simon Magus, who gave 
himself out as the Son of God, and Dositheus, who 
appeared among the Samaritans as their Christ.+ 
To such an extent had this species of deception 
proceeded, that the peace of the country was inter- 
rupted, and the Roman procurators felt it necessary 
to use force to put down those who were involved in 
it.t 2. Though, at the time when our Lord lived, it 
was a season of quiet and peace through the Roman 
empire, it was not long after his ascension till wars 
and rumours of wars, and commotions, spread con- 
fusion and dismay through its boundaries. Conten- 
tions for the imperial throne—insurrections in the 
provinces—contests between different cities and 
provinces in various parts of the empire, and espe- 
cially in that in which Judea was placed, kept the 
minds of men in continual agitation, and afforded 
ample verification of our Lord’s words. As Josephus 
succinctly sums up the whole: ‘“ Not only through 
Judea were there revolt and intestine war, but even 


* Antiq. Jud., 1. xx, c. 58, § 6. fIbid., li xx, ¢. 4,915 
t Josephus de Bell. Jud., 1. ii, c. 13, § 4, 5. 


232 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


in Italy itself; for Galba being slain in the midst of 
the Roman forum, Otho was created emperor, and 
entered into war with Vitellius, who affected also to 
reign.”* 38. As our Lord had foretold, there were 
several famines, and pestilences—the usual concomi- 
tants of famine—during the period referred to. One 
mentioned in Acts xi, 28, and by all the Roman 
historianst of the time, occurred in the reign of 
Claudius Cesar, and was severely felt at Jerusalem, 
where, Josephus says, many perished for want of 
food.{ In another place, the same historian speaks 
of famine and pestilence as sent by God upon the 
Jews for their wickedness. Accounts are also 
preserved of several destructive earthquakes which 
occurred at this time in Asia Minor, in Crete, in 
Italy, by which much property was damaged, not a 
few lives lost, and great fear excited.| Nor were 
there wanting “fearful sights and signs from heaven,” 
for both Josephus and Tacitus concur in asserting 
‘that portents of the most unusual and startling kind 
were witnessed in different parts of the world, but 


* De Bello Judaico, 1. iv, ¢. 9, § 9. 

{ Comp. Suetonius in Claudio, ¢. 18; Tacitus, Annal., 1. xii, 
ce. 43; Aurelius Victor de Cexsaribus, c. 4; Euseb. Hist. Eccl., 1. 
ii, c. 8. 

| Antig,,it. xx, ¢.-%, § 6+ civ, § 2. 

§ De Bell. Jud., 1. iv, ¢. 6, § 1. 

|| Philostratus in Vita Apollonii; Tacitus, Annal., 1. xii, c. 43, 
58; xv, 22, &c.; Seneca, Nat. Queest., 1. vi, c. 1; Suetonius in Galba, 
c.18; Josephus de Bell. Jud., 1. iv, c. 4, § 5. 

{] Josephus de Bell. Jud. Proem., Sls hivi, ccd; § Spee: 
Tacitus, Hist., 1. v, ¢. 13. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 9335 


especially in Judea. Had the statements referred 
to stood merely by themselves in the pages of these 
historians, they might have been contemned as ex- 
aggerations or as fictions, but when placed by the 
side of the predictions of Christ, they receive from 
these historical validity, while they in turn confirm 
the prophetical claims of the others; for in a case 
where there could neither be a common source of 
information, nor a borrowing from each other, such 
a correspondence can be accounted for only by ad- 
mitting the truth of both.* 

In this second class, then, of predictive utterances 
imputed to our Lord, we have the same close accord- 
ance between this announcement and the subse- 
quent events, as in the former class. 

A third class, and the only other I shall mention, 
embraces those declarations which our Lord uttered 
respecting the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jew- 
ish polity. These are full and minute. Not only 
did he unequivocally assure his disciples that Jeru- 
salem should be destroyed, and that the destruction 
should be so entire that she should be laid even 
with the ground, and not one stone should be left 
upon another; but he specifically intimated that 
Jerusalem should be compassed with armies—that 
the abomination of desolation, 7. ¢., idolatrous en- 
signs belonging to the destroyers, should stand in 
the holy place—that the invaders should cast a 
trench or fortification around Jerusalem—and that 


* See Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. 41. 


234 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


they should thereby so enclose the city as to keep it 
in on every side. He also foretold the flight of the 
Christians out of the city before it was so encom- 
passed, and the fearful miseries of those who were 
shut up in it, with the ultimate massacre of the 
Jews, and their dispersion into all nations.* With 
these predictions the event corresponded to the 
minutest particulars. The Roman general sur- 
rounded the holy city with his armies, and set up 
his idolatrous ensigns within the consecrated pre- 
cincts. In the face of almost insuperable difficul- 
ties, he surrounded the city with a rampart so as to 
render escape from it at any point impossible.t 
Before this was accomplished, however, the Chris- 
tians had, in a body, fled from the devoted city, 
and betaken themselves to the district beyond Jor- 
dan, where they were left untonched by the in- 
vaders.{ Within the city the most frightful scenes 
were exhibited. False prophets uttered their delu- 
sive announcements of trinmph and peace, while 
furious partisans filled the divided city with blood- 
shed, and mad fanaticism plundered the magazines 
and wasted the provisions on which the life of the 
besieged depended. famine soon raged in its most 
merciless form, and led to the most frightful scenes 
of suffering, rapacity, and barbarity—scenes such 

* Comp. Matt. xxiv, 1, 2, 15-22; Mark xiii, 1, 2, 14-23; Luke 
xxi, 20-24. 

} Joseph. de Bell. Jud., 1. v, c. 12, § 1, 2, and 3. 


t Joseph. de B. J., 1. ii, c. 19, § 6; 1. iv, c. 8, § 2; Euseb. H. E., 
1. iii, ¢. 5. 


CHARAOTER OF CHRIST. 235 
- 


as no other page in the world’s history records, and 
from the narrative of which the reader turns with 
disgust and horror. At length the city was taken, 
and the fury of the besiegers expended itself in the 
unsparing slaughter of its miserable defenders, un- 
til, as Josephus says, the soldiers were weary with 
killing. 

In other places, also, the same indiscriminate 
massacres took place, so that the same historian 
reckons that besides multitudes who were slain in 
the war, of whom no account was kept, there were 
destroyed by the Romans, in different places, which 
he mentions with the details belonging to each, of 
the Jews not fewer than one million three hundred 
and fifty-seven thousand six hundred and sixty per- 
sons.* Many thousands also were carried away 
into captivity, and dispersed among all nations; so 
that our Lord’s prediction was literally fulfilled. 
Indeed, the narrative of Josephus reads almost like 
an expository comment on the words of Christ; and 
so close is the coincidence between them, that they 
have employed almost the very same words in giv- 
ing a summary of the miseries of the Jews during 
the siege.t ‘There shall be,” says Christ, “ great 
tribulation, distress in the land, and wrath upon this 
people, such as was not from the beginning of the 


* De Bell. Jud., 1. vi, c. 9, § 33 1. ii, ¢. 14, § 9, &e.5 1. iii,.c. 2, § 2, 
éc.; 1. iv, c. 1,.§ 10, d&e.3 1. vii,:c. 9, § 4, dsc. 

T Gom. de Bell. Jud., 1. v, ¢. 10, § 3; ¢. 12, § 2; 1. vi, o 3, § 4; 
L vii, o. 11, § 13 Litices 12,84: 


236 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 
= 


creation which God created unto this time; no, nor 
shall ever be.” “All the calamities,” says Jose- 
phus,* “which had befallen any nation from the 
beginning of the world, were but small in compari- 
son with those of the Jews.” And, as Christ fore- 
told, Jerusalem was utterly overthrown, and the 
temple totally destroyed. In spite of the attempts 
of the Roman general to save it, the temple was 
burned to the foundation; and, by his orders, the 
whole city with its walls was levelled with the 
ground, with the exception of three towers, which 
he caused to be left to show the strength of the 
fortifications, and as trophies of his victory. So entire 
was the destruction that Josephus introduces Eleazer 
as saying to the Jews who were besieged in the for- 
tress of Masada, “ What is become of our city which 
we believed to be inhabited by God? It is now 
demolished to. the very foundation, and the only 
monument that is left of it is the camp of those who 
destroyed it, which is still pitched upon its ruins.” 
Since then, Jerusalem has been trodden down of 
the Gentiles. Successively has it been in the pos- 
session of the Romans, the Saracens, the Seljuks, 
the Franks, and the Turks, while the descendants 
of its ancient possessors exist in it only by suffer- 
ance, and crouch in abject submission where their 
fathers reigned. So exact in every particular is 
the correspondence between the predictions ascribed 
to our Lord and the subsequent events, as estab- 
* De Bell. Jud. Proem, § 4. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 237 


lished by the testimony of historians and the evi- 
dence of fact.* 


U. 


But here the question occurs, Did our Lord act- 
ually make these declarations? and if he did, are 
they entitled to be looked at in the light of prophe- 
cies, properly so called? I shall take the latter of 
these questions first. 

A prophecy, in the proper acceptation of the 
term, is a declaration that some event or series of 
events shall take place at a period sufticiently dis- 
tant to preclude the supposition of ordinary fore- 
sight or sagacity conjecturing its happening. It is 
necessary that the subject of the prophecy should 
be an event of such a kind that it may, after it has 
occurred, become the subject of historical narrative, 
otherwise it will be impossible to identify it with 
sufficient precision, so as to prove the fulfilment of 
the prediction. It is necessary also that it should 
be an occurrence of such a kind as that there is 
nothing in the existing state of affairs, or in the 
probable results of existing agencies, to suggest it 
to the mind of the prophet as likely to happen; 
else might it be attributed to that prescient skill 
which often enables men, within certain limits, to 
anticipate futurity, and be prepared for what is 
coming. And, in fine, the prophecy must be 
couched in terms which, without being so precise 


* Newton on the Prophecies, Disserto. 18-2]. 


238 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


as to beget a suspicion that it is designed to secure 
its own fulfilment, shall be free from ambiguity; so 
that, though it may not be fully comprehended until 
after the fulfilment, it shall yet, when fulfilled, be 
found to possess but one meaning. Where these 
conditions are complied with, all will admit that a 
true and real prophecy has been uttered. 

Now, assuming that our Lord did utter the pre- 
dictions we have cited, it must be admitted that, 
according to these criteria, they must be held to be 
genuine prophecies. They all point to events of 
such a kind that it is perfectly competent for any 
one, looking at the records of subsequent history, to 
say, without hesitation, whether they have occurred 
or not. They were all delivered at a time sufficiently 
remote from the period of their fulfilment to put it 
beyond question that it was not mere sagacious con- 
jecture that saw them in the shadows which they 
cast before them; while, at the time they were de- 
livered, it was so utterly improbable, judging from 
existing circumstances and the ordinary course of 
events, that such things should ever come to pass, 
that no human foresight, however skilled in affairs, 
could have been guided to anticipate them. On 
the contrary, all human probability pointed to an 
opposite conclusion ; and there can be no doubt that 
any worldly-wise man, hearing our Lord say such 
things, and looking at the probabilities of his say- 
ings coming true, would have been ready to laugh 
him to scorn as a fantastic dreamer or a wild fanatic. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 239 


It is also quite manifest that there is no ambiguity 
about our Lord’s predictions. In most of them the 
language is that of historical precision, there being 
no occasion for any obscurity where the fulfilment | 
was to depend upon agencies not capable of being 
in the least degree influenced by the prediction, so 
as to aim at its fulfilment; and in those of them 
where the language is such as that persons who 
heard it before the fulfilment may have found it 
somewhat obscure; there is yet such a definiteness 
of description, that as soon as the fulfilment cast 
its full light upon the prediction, it could not but 
be seen that it meant this one thing, and could 
mean no other. 

If, then, our Lord did utter these declarations, 
they must be regarded as prophecies in the true and 
proper sense of the term. Let us now inquire what 
reason we have for believing that he did utter them. 
And here I observe, 

1. That, as our Lord appeared in this world claim- 
ing to be a messenger from God, it is extremely 
probable that he would deliver prophecies. This 
was what all God’s messengers did, and the power 
to do this was one of the accredited credentials of 
their divine mission. There is nothing, therefore, 
antecedently improbable in what the evangelists 
have thus represented our Lord as doing; on the 
contrary, it is exactly what we should have expected 
of him as one claiming to be a divine messenger— 
“a teacher sent from God.” 


240 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


2. As these prophecies occur in narratives which 
bear all the marks of authenticity, and the authors 
of which were men of tested integrity, we are en- 
. titled to presume, in the absence of any evidence to 
the contrary, that they actually fell from the lips of 
our Lord. When a man of acknowledged upright- 
ness deliberately says that he heard another person 
utter certain words, the fair presumption is, that 
they were uttered as alleged. 

3. If our Lord did not utter these predictions, 
those who have reported that he uttered them must 
have been either deceived themselves, or they must 
have agreed to impose upon others. But is either 
supposition credible? Is it credible that a number 
of men should sincerely believe that they all heard 
their Master make certain very remarkable declara- 
tions, such as it was zdmpossible for them to hear 
without being struck with them, when, all the 
while, this was a mere delusion of their own 
minds? Shall we, then, say that they agreed to 
propagate a series of falsehoods in regard to this 
matter, for the purpose of imposing upon others ¢ 
If we adopt this hypothesis, we must be prepared 
to account for certain things which must be true if 
this be true. 

In the jirst place, we must believe that the first 
preachers of Christianity met and deliberately con- 
trived this falsehood; for, without this, there could 
not be that agreement among them which the hy- 
pothesis supposes, and which was absolutely neces- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. DAT 


sary to their having the least chance of being be- 
lieved. Now, they were either simple-minded men, 
such as all we know of them leads us to believe 
they were, or they were deep, designing knaves. 
But, if they were the former, they could not delib- 
erately agree on such an imposture; if they were 
the latter, they wowld not have committed them- 
selves to the risks of such an experiment. It may 
be admitted that a man, in the main honest, may 
be betrayed into a falsehood; but, in such a case, 
the man is careful to conceal his insincerity from 
even his most intimate friends; and it may be held 
a thing impossible, on the ordinary laws which 
regulate human conduct, that any number of honest 
men will, deliberately, and in concert, agree to pro- 
pagate a falsehood. We have only to imagine the 
twelve apostles, supposing them to be such men as 
we have every reason to think they were, meeting 
in serious consultation, and gravely looking one 
another in the face, while they deliberated what 
lies they would tell the world concerning their Mas- 
ter, to perceive the utter absurdity of this side of 
the supposition. If, on the other hand, we suppose 
them, notwithstanding all their seeming simplicity, 
a company of hardened and unscrupulous deceiv- 
ers, we have to account for men of such a character 
committing the enormous blunder of resting their 
pretensions upon a story which might at any mo- 
ment have been proved false. For, let it be remem- 


bered, that their supposed falsehood was exposed to 
16 


Q49 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


detection from two quarters; from the Jews in 
whose hearing it is alleged that many of Christ’s 
prophecies were delivered, and from their own 
company, any one of whom, wearied with the op- 
position which everywhere met their cause, or stung 
by the workings of a burdened conscience, might 
reveal their collusion, and expose their falsehood. 
Had either of these very possible cases occurred, 
their whole scheme would have been exploded, and 
they would have been covered with shame. While, 
therefore, on the one hand, we cannot suppose that 
they would have been unwise enough to encounter 
such a risk, the fact, on the other hand, that no 
such exposure ever took place—the fact that no 
Jew ever stood forward and said, “I was present 
on the occasion when Jesus is alleged to have ut- 
tered these words, and I solemnly declare he never 
uttered them;” and the fact that none of the first 
disciples of Christ was ever found, under the con- 
straint of persecution, torture, or remorse, to relieve 
himself by exposing the falsehoods upon which, on 
this supposition, he must have known the whole 
system of Christianity was based, will afford to 
every candid mind the most satisfactory evidence 
that there was no dishonest contrivance in the mat- 
ter, but that the facts must have occurred as the 
evangelists have attested. 

In the second place, if we suppose that the prophe- 
cies ascribed to our Lord are mere fictions, we must 
account for men like the apostles and primitive 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 243 


Christians arriving at the conception of such a fic- 
tion as they. have presented to us in their repre- 
sentations of our Lord as a prophet. I do not refer 
here so much to the difficulty of their imagining 
such events as they have represented our Lord as 
predicting, I refer rather to the light in which they 
present him while uttering these predictions, and 
to the impossibility of a set of Galilean peasants, 
such as they were, arriving at any conception so 
sublime as that of a persun from whose lips the 
most remarkable predictions dropped, as if they 
formed but the familiar and every-day objects of 
his far-stretching mind. In this respect, their pic- 
ture is as original as it is impressive. Had they 
borrowed from the heathen around them, we should 
have had their Master issuing his oracles with all 
the excitement and frenzy of a Pythoness, or affect- 
ing the gloom and mystery of a Mierophant; and 
had they drawn from the example of the ancient 
prophets of their own nation, we should have had a 
much more formal and awful presentation than that 
which they have given. The conception of one 
who, calm and unex€ited, uttered the distinctest 
predictions of events which no human sagacity 
could have foreseen, in his ordinary conversations 
with his disciples, or in his public addresses to the 
multitude, is a conception all their own. That such 
men should have possessed such a conception at all, 
and that they should have been able to unfold it so 
naturally and so consistently, is to be accounted for, 


Q44 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


I apprehend, only on the principle that they drew 
from the life, and that the sublime reality was be- 
fore them, as their pencil sketched the picture. 

In the therd place, the hypothesis that these 
prophecies are the contrivance of the disciples of 
Christ, assumes that they were concocted after the 
events which they seem to foretell had occurred. 
For, had they been announced before, they would 
still have been true predictions, whether uttered by 
Christ or not, and would have carried with them all 
the evidence, in favour of those who uttered them, 
which true predictions yield. But, if the apostles 
contrived these predictions after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, it must have been for the purpose of at- | 
tracting the favourable regards of the conquering 
party toward Christianity and toward its Founder. 
We can conceive no other object they could have 
had in view, for such predictions could only be 
offensive to the Jews, and to all who were on their 
side, while they could have no effect in confirming 
those who were already Christians, for to them the 
artifice would be too transparent to have any such 
effect: nay, it is more than probable that many 
would have been disgusted by it; for, however sim- 
ple the early Christians may be supposed to be, it 
is incredible that they should have been deceived 
by so clumsy a trick; and, as there were undoubt- 
edly some honourable minds among them, there 
was no small risk that the perpetrators of such a 


. contrivance would be indignantly exposed. We 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 945 


must suppose, then, that the authors of these predic- 
tions determined to incur this risk, with all its at- 
tendant hazards, in the hope of commending their 
religion to the Romans. Now, who can read these 
predictions and believe this? Is it credible that, 
having such a design in view, they would not have 
introduced some statements calculated to identify 
the destroyers of Jerusalem with Titus and his 
army, instead of leaving this altogether indetermi- 
nate? It is remarkable that the topic on which, 
according to this hypothesis, they should have been 
most precise, is the very topic on which they repre- 
sent our Lord as saying not a word. Surely, if they 
had wished by this expedient to gain favour with 
the Romans, they would have introduced something 
which should have seemed to point at that nation 
in particular, and which would have been flattering 
to the national pride of that proudest of peoples. 
For tricksters and forgers, the evangelists have 
shown themselves, in this instance, strangely scru- 
pulous and unwisely parsimonious, in the use of the 
materials they employ for the purpose they are sup- 
posed to have had in view! A very few wordé 
‘more would have placed the reference of the pre- 
diction to the Romans beyond a doubt, and con- 
tributed immensely to the success of their project. 
Why were these words not added if their object 
was such as this hypothesis represents? Or, if they 
wished to gratify the Romans, why not at least re- 
frain from expressions that were more likely to in- 


246 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


flame their resentment? Fancy an apostle going 
to the army of Titus, or standing up in the streets 
of Rome, and attempting to excite a favourable 
impression toward Christianity by proclaiming that 
Christ had spoken of the sacred standards of Im- 
perial Rome as “the abomination of desolation!” 
Who does not feel that the very supposition is in- 
credible and absurd ? 

In the fourth place, the supposition that the apos- 
tles fabricated these predictions, after the events, is 
entirely precluded in the case of one of them, by the 
circumstances of the case. I allude to the predic- 
tion respecting the flight of the Christians on the 
approach of the Roman army to Jerusalem. The 
argument here is capable of being presented in a 
form which seems quite conclusive. Either it is a 
fact that the Christians, when the Romans drew near, 
did make their escape from Jerusalem, or it is a 
fact that they did not. If they did, they must have 
had the prophecy among them: if they did not, they 
can have had no such prophecy among them, for 
we cannot conceive that they should have possessed 

“it, and yet neglected it. But if they had no such 
prophecy among them, it is utterly incredible that 
a writer, whose work appeared immediately after the 
event, (for if the Gospels were written after the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, it must have been dmmedi- 
ately after,) should have said that they had. Such 
a fiction would have been too gross to have been 
endured, especially as it conveyed an implied cen- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 947 


sure on the Christians for not believing their Lord’s 
word. This, taken in connexion with the fact that the 
Christians actually did flee from Jerusalem on the 
approach of the Romans, seems to place it beyond 
doubt, that this prediction at least was known among 
them as uttered by their Lord, antecedent to the 
event. 

It appears, from these considerations, that the 
supposition that the apostles invented these predic- 
tions, and ascribed them to our Lord, for purposes 
of deception, is one so burdened with difficulties, 
that no reflective mind can seriously retain it. It 
follows, that as they could not be deceived in a 
matter of this sort, the only tenable opinion is, that 
their narrative is authentic, and that Jesus Christ 
actually did deliver the predictions which they have 
reported. 

4, Hitherto I have argued on the presumption 
that we know nothing of the period in which the 
Gospels were published; and I have endeavoured to 
show that even supposing none of them was written 
till after the destruction of Jerusalem, there is yet 
historical ground for receiving as authentic the pre- 
dictions they have ascribed to our Lord. I have 
now, however, to remark that there is the strongest 
reason to believe that three at least of the Gospels 
were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
For this we have the concurrent testimony of Chris- 
tian antiquity, corroborated by the probabilities of 
the case, and by internal evidence. At the time of 


248 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


the overthrow of Jerusalem, Matthew, if alive, must 
have been at least seventy years of age, perhaps he 
was considerably older; and there seems no reason 
to believe that he would defer to that advanced age 
a task which there was every reason for his discharg-- 
ing as soon as possible. Mark and Luke were prob- 
ably younger men, but the latter had composed his 
Gospel before he wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and 
the latter must have been finished in the year 62 or 
63 at the latest, for with this date the book closes. 
Mark, it is probable, finished his Gospel about the 
same time. It may be .added that all the three 
write of Jerusalem as still standing, and of the 
Jewish state as still existing, and that not one of 
them drops the least hint when recording the pre- 
dictions of Christ, that these had been fulfilled, 
which they would hardly have failed to do had they 
recorded them subsequently to the occurrence of 
the events to which they relate. In fact, there can 
be no reasonable doubt that these three Gospels were 
composed and in circulation several years previous 
to the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, this it will 
be seen completely disposes of the insinuation that 
the prophecies were fabricated after the event. So 
far from this, they were actually extant in a written 
form years before the events occurred. It does not, 
indeed, follow from this that they were uttered by 
Christ ; but this fact proves that the Christians actu- 
ally had among them these predictions long before 
the events occurred, and if we admit that they 


' CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 249 


actually had the prophecy, it is hardly worth while 
to hesitate as to taking their word respecting thé 
source whence they obtained it. We may therefore 
regard the historical authenticity of these predictions 
as lying beyond the reach of serious impeachment 
or cavil. 


UI. 


Having, by the course pursued, ascertained that 
our Lord really did deliver the predictions at which 
I have glanced, it only remains to inquire, What is 
the bearing of this upon the claims of his religion 
as divine ? 

Here the argument is subtantially the same as 
that from the miracles which he wrought. Prophecy 
and miracles are, in fact, only different forms of the 
same phenomenon ; for the worker of a miracle does 
not so much perform the act as simply foretell that 
God is about to perform it, just as the prophet fore- 
tells what God in his providence will bring to pass. 
In either case the immediate effect of the act is not 
the proving of the doctrine, but the sanctioning of 
the teacher. As a miracle is present evidence that 
God ¢s with the man who performs it, so the fulfil- 
ment of a real prophecy affords retrospective evi- 
dence that God was with the man who uttered it. 
In both cases an unimpeachable proof is furnished 
that what such a one teaches is from God. 

The argument from prophecy, like that from 
miracles, is brief but conclusive. As God is alone 


250 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


omniscient, and as only an omniscient being can 
‘certainly know what is to happen in the future, all 
true prophecy, as a prediction of what shall come to 
pass under circumstances which preclude the possi- 
bility of its having been foreseen or conjectured 
by human sagacity, must come directly from God. 
When, therefore, any man utters a prophecy, justly 
so called, which in due time is fulfilled, the only 
way in which we can account for the fact of his 
having done this is by regarding him as empowered 
and commissioned by God. But, as God would not 
lend his sanction to any save one whom he had 
specially sent forth to speak in his name, wherever 
such sanction is given, we are bound to receive 
whatever the prophet says to us, in the name of 
God, as really and truly what God has sent him to 
teach. ; 

So far the argument from prophecy is substantially 
identical with that from miracles. But there is a 
point in which the former goes somewhat beyond 
the latter—a point of importance, though it has been 
very generally overlooked by writers on the evi- 
dences. A miracle simply proves that God is giving 
his sanction to the man who apparently performs it, 
and thereby entitles that man to demand our sub- 
mission to his words as the words of God. Prophecy ~ 
not only does this, but it also exemplifies the fact 
which it is designed to confirm,—namely, that God 
can convey knowledge to the mind of his creature, 
so as to enable the latter to communicate it to others. 


CHARACTER OF OHRIST. Q51 


Prophecy, in short, not only proves the person who 
utters it to be divinely inspired, but it is itself a 
divine inspiration. It thus carries us a step further 
‘than miracles; and if it does not more certainly prove 
the presence of God with the teacher, who, on the 
ground of his supernatural powers, demands our 
submission, it at least prepares us to receive his 
lesson, seeing he has already given us a specimen 
of how God may speak to us through one who is of 
the same nature with ourselves. 

The only objection that has ever been insinuated 
against the force of this argument, is founded upon 
the fact that sometimes a prediction uttered at a 
hazard has, through a curious coincidence, come to 
pass; from which it is argued that as such a coin- 
cidence does not imply divine inspiration, neither 
can the coincidence between the predictions of 
Scripture and subsequent events be held to prove 
that those who uttered these predictions were 
inspired of God. Now it may be admitted that 
such fortuitous coincidences do sometimes occur, 
where no person would be inclined to suppose the 
presence of divine agency in prompting the ap- 
parent prediction; but that these are, for a single 
moment, to be put upon the same footing with the 
predictions of our Lord and their fufilment, it seems 
the height of absurdity to assert. Such coincidences 
are purely and by universal acknowledgment the 
result of accident; but will any person venture to 
ascribe the fulfilment of Christ’s predictions to ac- 


252 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


cident or chance? Let the nwmber of these be con- 
sidered, let their definiteness of object, and fulness 
of detail be duly weighed, and then let any person 
skilled in the calculation of chances try whethef 
there be any conceivable amount that will express 
the improbability of all these utterances coming 
true, supposing them mere random utterances of 
an ardent, or far-seeing, or poetic mind. Persons 
are, of course, at liberty to reject the prophecies of 
Christ as evidences of the divinity of his commission, 
if they can bring themselves to look upon them in 
no other light than as happy conjectures or lively 
anticipations which have come true by chance; but 
if any man can honestly and intelligently bring 
himself to thzs conclusion, he must possess a mind 
so utterly different from that of all other men as 
to render it doubtful how far it can be considered 
sane. } 

On calmly and thoughtfully reviewing, therefore, 
the argument from the predictions uttered by Christ, 
I would put it to the good sense and candid judg- 
ment of all who may read these lines, whether it 
does not shut us up to the conviction that the re- 
ligion he taught must be accepted by us as from 
heaven. We cannot say that he brought no sign of 
his divine commission with him; for what could 
more clearly indicate this than his being able to 
predict what only omniscience could foresee? We 
cannot say that it is incredible that any man can 
reveal to us the mind of God; for here is a case in 


CHARAOTER OF CHRIST. 253 


which we have, in regard to matters in which we 
and all men can judge, an indubitable example of 
the conveyance of a portion of the divine knowledge 
into the mind of a man, for the purpose of being 
communicated to others ; and if it be possible for a 
man to apprehend what God alone knows in refer- 
ence to the future history of our world, it is no less 
possible for him to apprehend the mind of God in 
regard to moral or religious truth. There is no rea- 
son, then, why any man, with such evidence before 
him, should refuse or hesitate to embrace the doc- 
trines taught by Christ as divine. It is not manly 
to take refuge in petty cavils, where a great body 
of evidence cogently persuades to a particular con- 
clusion. It is not wise to refuse to admit what has 
clearly established its claim to be regarded as true. 
It is not honest to attempt to discredit by a sneer 
what we are unable to refute by argument. The 
only worthy course for a being of intelligence and 
moral sense is to prefer truth to everything else, and 
to accept as true whatever can establish its claim to 
be so regarded by the evidence appropriate to that 
department of knowledge to which it belongs. 


Q54 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER IV. 


ARGUMENT FROM THE PUBLIC TEACHING OF JESUS 
CHRIST AS A HERALD OF DIVINE TRUTH. 


Accorpine to the accounts of the evangelists, our 
Lord spent the last three years of his life on earth 
as a public teacher of religion among the Jews. 
His instructions were delivered in various forms,— 
to audiences composed of very different classes of 
the people,—and under a variety of circumstances. 
Much of his teaching was conveyed in the form of 
parables, though occasionally his addresses partook 
of the nature of lengthened discourses; sometimes 
he communicated truth in brief apophthegms or 
pointed admonitions; and in some instances, espe- 
cially when dealing with those who opposed him, 
he adopted a method resembling the Socratic, 
silencing opposition by a series of apposite ques- 
tions, and shutting men up to the truth, by leading 
them from their own admissions to the conclusion 
he sought to establish. We find him teaching now 
in the metropolis, and now in the provincial towns 
and villages of Judea; at one time addressing the 
people who were collected in the temple, at another 
those who had met in a synagogue, at another the 
promiscuous crowds in the streets, and at another 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 955 


a select party of friends or inquirers in a private 
house. Sometimes his audiences assembled in the 
open fields, or on a mountain’s side, or by the mar- 
gin of the sea. His auditors were as varied as his 
places of meeting them. Sometimes men of high 
rank or learning in his nation, sometimes the poor, 
the illiterate, and the profligate; now persons who 
had come to cavil or entangle him in his talk, and 
now humble and earnest disciples who sat at his 
feet, and heard him gladly. To all these classes of 
hearers he adapted his addresses with extraordinary 
skill and knowledge of human nature. With un- 
wearied assiduity, with unequalled patience, with 
inexhaustible resources, he plied his benevolent but 
too often thankless task; and only quitted it when 
he was apprehended by the rulers of his nation, and 
dragged to a cruel and iniquitous death. 

To discuss at large our Lord’s character as a 
teacher, would lead me into details incompatible 
with my present purpose. Referring my readers, 
therefore, for a copious consideration of this subject 
to those books which have been written expressly 
upon it, I propose at present to confine myself to a 
brief illustration of the main design of our Lord’s 
teaching—the materials he used in order to reach 
that design—and the characteristic excellences of 
his mode of presenting these materials. On the 
basis thus laid, I shall then endeavour to raise an 
argument in favour of the divine authority of his 
teaching as a whole. 


256 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


L 


To act upon design—to seek a well-defined end 
by the use of appropriate means, is the mark of 
wisdom in all departments of human exertion, and 
in that of a teacher not less than in any other. An 
instructor who sets to work upon the minds of 
others, whether juvenile or adult, without having 
distinctly before him what it is that he intends to. 
effect by his exertions, is very likely to spend his 
energies to but little purpose. Such a one is not 
wiser than the agriculturalist who scatters his seeds 
at random, and knows not whether the produce he 
anticipates will be of the kind to meet his wants 
or not. 

The consummate prudence and sagacity which 
mark our Lord’s conduct in every other respect, 
lead us to expect that in that which formed the 
chief occupation of his matured energies on earth, 
he would not proceed without a well-considered de- 
sign and plan. Happily we are not left to our own 
conjectures or inferences on this point; for both our 
Lord himself and the narrators of his earthly his- 
tory have given us specific.information regarding 
the purpose which he contemplated in his public 
ministry. “I am come,” said he, “not to call the 
righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Matt. ix, 1. 
“Jesus came,” says Mark, ‘preaching the gospel 
of the kingdom of God.” Mark i, 14. “He went,” 
says Luke, “through every city and village preach- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 257 


ing and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of 
God.” Luke viii, 1. And when John the Baptist 
sent to him to inquire whether he were indeed the 
Christ, he applied to himself a passage in the writ- 
ings of Isaiah, and announced it as his office to pro- 
claim the acceptable year of the Lord—the season 
of Jehovah’s grace—the age of liberty, restoration, 
and peace.* From such statements we may gather 
a definite conception of what formed the main 
design of Jesus Christ as a teacher. He came to 
announce to men the kingdom of God, to tell them 
of its advent, to explain to them its nature, and to 
persuade them to embrace, in a genuine and con- 
genial spirit, its offered immunities and privileges. 
By the phrase, “kingdom of God,” or “of heaven,” 
our Lord and his apostles denote God’s moral sway 
over his intelligent creatures; not that control by 
which he holds all creature existence in his hand, 
and makes all subserve his purposes, but that con- 
scious and cheerful submission to his will, which 
marks those of his intelligent creatures who rever- 
ence and love him.+ The idea of such an institu- 


“ Luke iv, 19. De Wette explains éviavtév dexrov Kvptév, “the 
grace-year of the Lord, 1. ¢., the year, the era in which the Lord is 
gracious.”—Kurze Erklérung,inloc. Kuhnoel renders it “annum 
benevolentix Jovee.””—Comment., in loc. 

+ Compare on this phrase Campbell’s Fifth Preliminary Disser- 
tation to his translation of the Gospels; Tholuck’s Exposition of 
the Sermon on the Mount, translated by Menzies, vol. i, p. 97, ff. ; 
Storr, de notione regni coelestis in N. T., in his Opuscula, vol. i, 
translated in No. 9 of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet; Kihnoel 
on Matt. iii, 2; Koppe, Excursus i, ad 2 Thess. 

on 


258 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


tion, as one to be set up in this world of sin and 
sorrow, we may venture to call one of the most 
splendid conceptions to which man has ever been 
invited to turn his thoughts. Conscious of sin, op- 
pressed with pain and grief, wearied and disgusted 
with the unbroken monotony of evil that prevails in 
the world, men of elevated minds and warm imagi- 
nations have delighted to picture forth schemes of 
perfect commonwealths, in which evil should be 
reduced to a minimum, and all that is good and 
beautiful in man should be developed in ever-ad- 
vancing forms of excellence. But how feeble and 
unphilosophical and impracticable are even the 
loftiest and noblest of these schemes! and how 
paltry do they appear when placed by the side of 
the project so simply, so unostentatiously announced 
to us in the Gospels, under the appellation, “The 
kingdom of heaven.” At the best we have a Pla- 
tonic Republic, a visionary Utopia, a philosophic 
Atlantis; the pleasant dreams of pensive and imag- 
inative minds, which no man ever believed capable 
of being practically realized, and which the sharp 
utilitarianism of the senate or the market-place only 
laugh to scorn. These for the best; and as for other 
schemes which have been promulgated, what are 
they but the weak or wicked contrivances of men 
of corrupt hearts, perverted judgments, or distem- 
pered intellects? It remains with Christ alone of 
all human teachers to have been the herald of a 
scheme of an ameliorated world, in which there is 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 259 


nothing irrational, nothing fantastic, nothing im- 
practicable—which sets aside no natural law, vio- 
Jates no principle of morals, thwarts no pure or 
honourable tendency, offends no virtuous or gener- 
ous emotion—and which, while it dazzles by its 
grandeur, attracts by its loveliness, and commands 
confidence by its adaptation to man’s felt wants and 
known modes of thinking and acting. This scheme 
is the only one that has ever gone to the root ot 
the matter, or contemplated the question at issue in 
all its extent, and in all its complicated bearings. 
It sets out from the fundamental principle that the 
Creator is entitled to the homage, the obedience, 
and the love of all his intelligent’ creatures. It 
affirms of each of these that his happiness depends 
on his retaining a perpetual sense of the Creator’s 
presence, and an abiding determination to live only 
to his honour and glory. It announces to man that 
all his misery and all his guilt are to be traced to 
the fact that he is a rebel against God, and har- 
bours a feeling of enmity or distrust toward him. 
It proposes to man that this shall terminate, and 
urges on him reconciliation to his Maker as the 
first, the essential, the all-comprehending step to- 
ward the amelioration of his disordered condition. 
It unfolds to him a way, provided by God himself, 
through which that much-needed reconciliation may 
be obtained, assures him of God’s perfect willing- 
ness to be at peace with him, and lays before him 
proofs, which need but to be apprehended to be 


260 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


felt, of God’s unbounded grace, and readiness to 
bless all who will approach him in that way. In 
these announcements it lays a basis for the recov- 
ered empire of God over his fallen creature man. 
Wherever they are cordially embraced, they bring 
the individual under the potent sway of a heavenly 
influence; his soul is purged of selfishness and im- 
purity; his conscience is relieved from a crushing 
and a confounding sense of guilt; and the elements 
of a new life, of a higher spiritual being, are in- 
fused into his soul. Each individual recipient of 
the message being thus made a subject and evi- 
dence of its potency, each becomes a pledge of the 
ultimate success of the scheme. And when that is 
consummated, the sorrows of earth shall be ended ; 
the wrongs of man shall be redressed; the discords 
which have grated on the ear of humanity, all 
through the centuries, shall be hushed; the groans 
of vexed and wearied creation shall be soothed; the 
lazar-house of human suffering shall be closed; and, 
amid the songs of a ransomed and regenerated 
world, blending with the music of universal nature, 
and reéchoed by the notes of angels’ harps, the 
voice shall be heard saying, “The kingdoms of this 
world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of 
his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” 
Rev, B: 

Of this great idea the germ may be found in the 
Old Testament; but it was reserved for Jesus Christ 
to unfold it in all its fulness, and, at the same time, 


OHARAOCTER OF CHRIST. 261 


to publish the glad tidings of its actual realization 
among men. To guide men’s minds to a just ap- 
prehension of the truth on this matter, and to per- 
suade them to such a course as should end in their 
becoming the blessed subjects of this kingdom, 
formed the main purpose of his personal ministry. 
Hence he was led, as a teacher, to take the widest 
views of man’s condition and necessities. He came 
not as a Jew merely to the Jews; he came as the 
messenger of God to man as man. He appeared 
not to uphold the formalities of any system of out- 
ward worship, or to indoctrinate men with the dog- 
mata of any existing theological sect; his mission 
was to men as sinners who were in danger of per- 
ishing in their guilt, and whom it was needful above 
all things to convince of the necessity of seeking 
peace with God. Hence his call to all men was a 
call to repentance, to faith, to spirituality of wor- 
ship, to earnestness about the things of religion, to 
an entire renunciation of dependence upon external 
privileges or external performances for acceptance 
with God. His aim ever was to awaken the spirit- 
ual sense in men, to arouse them to deal with the 
realities of religion, to make them feel that religion 
has its seat in the soul, and to lead them to the con- 
sequent conclusion, that apart from the intelligent 
reception of spiritual truths and the subjugation of 
the whole inner life to their control, there is no true 
or acceptable piety. Appearing at an age when 
the outward in religion had overborne and almost 


262 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


suppressed the inward, when the minister of relig- 
ion was (as has been happily said*) nothing better 
than a master of ceremonies, and when salvation, 
so far as that idea was at all realized, was supposed 
to be secured by making the sum of ritual perform- 
ance overbalance the amount of personal delin- 
quency; our Lord everywhere proclaimed the fu- 
tility of all outward worship, except as it formed 
the index and vehicle of inward feeling, and taught 
that salvation could be secured only by a change 
wrought 7 men by spiritual means, and was in no 
degree promoted by anything done on them through 
sacerdotal incantations, or anything done by them 
in the way of personal merit. For him mere lip- 
service or knee-homage had no charms. Sternly 
did he repudiate the service of those who should 
say, Lord, Lord, and yet did not the things he had 
commanded. Solemnly did he warn men of the 
danger of such conduct, assuring them that in the 
day of judgment many who should claim the favour 
of the Judge on the ground of outward service, 
should be rejected by him as persons whom he had 
never known. Never was the necessity of a real 
spiritual religion more strikingly enforced than in 
the teaching of Christ. Intent on bringing men 
into the kingdom of heaven, all his discourses were 
made to bear more or less directly on this end. To 
bring sinners to repentance, to emancipate men 


* Vaughan, Essays on History, Philosophy, and Theology, vol. i, 
page 144. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 263 


from the slavery of ignorance and the tyranny of 
sin, to recover the wandering prodigal to the plenty 
and tenderness of his Father’s house, to reunite the 
scattered and hostile tribes of men in one great and 
happy brotherhood, under the rule of the one God 
and Father of all, and to make earth once more a 
scene of peace, purity, and joy :—this was the no- 
ble and beneficent end which he contemplated, 
and to which his unwearied efforts as a teacher 
were directed. 


ii 


And what were the materials which our Lord 
employed in order to accomplish this end? We 
may class these under the two heads of reproofs 
directed to those who were opposing the interests 
of the kingdom of God, and instructions intended 
for the benefit of those who were desirous of becom- 
ing subjects and servants of that kingdom. 

1. In his public addresses our Lord frequently 
acted the part of a reprover. This was rendered 
necessary by the fearful state into which the Jewish 
nation had sunk in respect of religion and morality. 
A process of degeneracy had been going on among 
them for centuries; and, at the time of our Lord’s 
appearance, had reached its culminating point. 
Among the mass of the people, ignorance, super- 
stition, and a cold formality had usurped the place 
of true piety. A kind of religion was retained by 
them which served to lull the conscience, while it 


264 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


left the intellect untouched, the heart unpurified, 
and the life unimproved. The institutes of the re- 
ligion which had been revealed to their fathers had 
been overlaid and hidden from the view of the people 
by a mountain mass of traditionary additions and 
perversions, the accumulated follies of many genera- 
tions of men who, seeking to be wiser and fuller than 
Scripture, only demonstrated their own ignorance 
and weakness. Among the more educated part of 
the community, the partisans of rival schools of 
theology contended with each other, and by their 
conflicting opinions and their unhesitating anathe- 
mas, only the more perplexed and beclouded the 
understandings of the common people. The Phari- 
sees appeared as the strenuous supporters of tradi- 
tional orthodoxy, and contended with equal, if not 
greater zeal, for the dogmas and institutes of the 
Fathers as for those of Scripture. The Sadducees, 
on the other hand, professing to keep strictly to the 
written word, would admit nothing for which pre- 
cise and express statements of Moses or the 
prophets could not be adduced. And the Essenes, 
the third of the great sects into which the doctors 
of the Jews were divided, were a class of ascetics 
who attached value to penances and mortifications, 
and taught that there could be no true religion save 
in. solitude, meditation, and self-inflicted suffering. 
Of these sects all had some elements of truth, but 
their views were partial and one-sided; and, as 
usually happens, they filled up the complement of 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 265 


their system with pernicious errors. The effect of 
their influence upon the community at large was 
most injurious. The contests in which they indulged 
destroyed the confidence of the people in the cer- 
tainty of truth, and tempted them to take refuge in 
a merely formal and traditionary religion. Hence 
the Pharisees, as the advocates of an authoritative, 
unreflecting, and ceremonial religion, came to ac- 
quire the largest amount of influence in the nation. 
The people obeyed their teaching with a slavish 
dependence, and followed in their train with a cring- 
ing and superstitious reverence. In the meanwhile, 
faith, spirituality, godliness everywhere decayed, and 
nothing but a superstitious formality, a profitless 
scrupulosity in matters of no moment, a boastful 
estimate of their own religious position, and a fierce 
and narrow bigotry that filled them with contempt 
and hatred of all besides themselves, remained to 
constitute their religion. And in this degradation 
of religion, morals also were degraded. With the 
fear of God was lost or enfeebled the sense of moral 
obligation. A base sensuality, an unmeasured licen- 
tiousness, a disregard of honour, integrity, and equity, 
reigned through the community. “No form of 
crime,” says their own historian, “was then unprac- 
tised among the Jews; and were any man to try to 
invent a new one, he would find it had already ap- 
peared there. In public and in private, all were 
affected with this moral disorder, and their grand 
ambition seemed to be to excel each other in acts 


266 - CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


of impiety against God and crime against their 
neighbours.”* 

Appearing in the midst of such a people, the 
great Teacher could act no other part than that of 
a firm and unsparing reprover. Fired with a holy 
zeal for God, and filled with pity for the misguided 
and perishing multitude, he could not but lift up 
his voice against the errors by which they were de- 
luded, and expose the selfish and wicked designs of 
. those who were leading them astray. Hence we find 
him often speaking out in terms of ‘stern severity 
in his discourses and conversations as recorded in 
the Gospels. In the rebukes, however, which he 
uttered, we never meet with anything that betokens 
haste or passion. His zeal, though ardent, is ever 
pure and principled. When he denounces error, it 
is for the sake of substituting truth in its stead; 
and when he deals with persons, he ever carefully 
discriminates the mistaken and the misguided from 
those who knowingly and for sinister purposes were 
inculeating error. To the people at large his re- 
bukes partook rather of the nature of warnings and 
entreaties than of criminations. The errors of the 
Essenes he exposed rather by his contrary practice 
than by formal exposures or denunciations—by go- 
ing to marriage-feasts, accepting the hospitality of 
those who were disposed to show him kindness, 
and mingling freely in the society of congenial 
spirits, rather than by directly pronouncing censures 

* Josephus, de Bell. Jud., 1. v, c. 13, § 6. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 267 


on those whom probably he regarded as in the main 
honest, though visionary and extravagant. To the 
Sadducees, also, his manner was usually indicative 
of respect for their openness and consistency, though 
he showed no disposition to spare their partial and 
erroneous opinions; for the most part he rather 
calmly reasons with them for the purpose of show- 
ing them the unsoundness of their peculiar tenets, 
than pronounces upon them any indignant censure. 
It was for the Pharisees—proud, selfish, avaricious, 
and hypocritical, that his keenest rebukes were re- 
served. -With them he maintained an incessant and 

unsparing conflict. It could hardly be otherwise. 
_ We may venture to say, that between such a char- 
acter as his and that which they as a body displayed, 
there existed that natural antipathy which rendered 
collision between them as public teachers unavoid- 
able. In them we see ignorance, pride, insolence, 
selfishness, rapacity—a restless desire for the ap- 
plause of men, and an overbearing contempt for all 
but themselves. In Him we see knowledge, wisdom, 
meekness, gentleness, generosity, sincerity, perfect 
disinterestedness, elevated piety, and unbounded 
benevolence toward all, however humble or poor. 
That two such antagonist characters should meet 
without coming into conflict is impossible. Gentle 
and peaceful as our Saviour was, he could not, with- 
out being false to himself and to his mission, have 
refrained from affixing the brand of his indignant 
reprobation on characters and conduct such as theirs. 


268 CHRIST AND OHRISTIANITY. 


Hence his language to them at times assumes, like 
that of his forerunner John, the tone of vehement 
invective. He brands them as hypocrites,—mere 
whited sepulchres, fair on the outside, but within full 
of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness; he charges 
them with being robbers of the widow and the 
fatherless, with murdering the prophets, and with 
deceiving and oppressing the people; he condemns 
them as perverters of God’s word, and as profaners 
of God’s temple; and he holds them up to abhor- 
rence as “serpents for whom was reserved the dam- 
nation of hell.” Had these expressions fallen from 
any but the calm, the forgiving, the benevolent 
Jesus of Nazareth, we might have been ready to 
impute them to the acerbity of personal feeling; 
but his whole character forbids such an imputation, 
and constrains us to regard them as the well-weighed 
“words of truth and soberness,” wrung from him by 
the sight of the wide-spread and long-enduring 
mischief which these self-constituted leaders of the 
people were entailing upon their unhappy followers. 
It could not be that one so pure, so truthful, so 
compassionate, should regard with other feelings 
than those of intense abhorrence their falsehood, 
hypocrisy, and cruelty, or refrain from giving fit 
utterance to his feelings. And having come to 
proclaim the kingdom of God among men, how 
could he but denounce those as the worst enemies 
of their species who had shut the door of that king- 
dom, were claiming to retain the key of it, and 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 269 


would neither enter themselves nor suffer those who 
would enter to goin? We may well believe that 
every reproof he uttered cost his heart a pang; but 
fidelity demanded that the reproof should be uttered, 
and he would have fallen short of what became him 
as the herald of the kingdom, he would not have 
proved himself “the faithful and the true witness” 
for God, had he abated one word of his heavy but 
— denunciations. 

. It was not, however, so much to his rebuking 
yr error and criminality, as to the inculeating of 
truth that our Lord directed his efforts as a teacher 
of religion. Here his great aim was to convey to 
men just views of the nature of the kingdom of God, 
and to exhort them to those courses of conduct 
which were becoming in the subjects of that king- 
dom. It is only avery condensed and cursory view 
that I can pretend to offer here of his leading doc- 
trines on these points. 

(1.) Our Saviour taught repeatedly and emphati- 
cally the spiritual and unworldly character of this 
kingdom. He declared that its coming was “not 
with observation,”—that it was within men—that it 
was not of this world—and that it was advanced not 
by the sword or civil power, but solely by the force 
of truth. Luke xvii, 20; John xviii, 36,37. He 
compared it to a grain of mustard seed, which, cast 
into the earth, takes root, and imperceptibly springs 
up, until, contrary to what human sagacity would 
anticipate, it becomes a mighty tree, filling the 


270 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


earth, and giving shelter in its branches to all the 
fowls of heaven. He compared it also to leaven 
hid in three measures of meal, which imperceptibly 
but surely works until the whole be leavened. 
Matt. xiii, 31-33. In both these parables the same 
great truth substantially is taught, namely, that the 
heavenly kingdom has a tendency to spread in the 
earth, and that it is destined ultimately to occupy 
the whole world; but that, unlike an earthly king- 
dom, it is noiseless in its progress, achieving its vic- 
tories not in the light, but in the shade—not on the 
battle-field or in the senate, but in the closet, and 
binding its laws not merely on the outward activity, 
but on the hearts, and judgments, and consciences 
of its subjects. 

(2.) Christ taught that to participate in the privi- 
leges of the kingdom of God is the greatest of all 
blessings for man. He compared it to a man’s dis- 
covering a treasure hid in a field, so precious that 
he sold all that he had that he might purchase that 
field and possess himself of its hidden wealth. He 
spoke of it as the getting of a pearl of great price, 
for which it was worth a man’s while to part with 
all his possessions. Matt. xiii, 44-46. Besides such 
general intimations, he specifically informed his 
hearers that the subjects of this kingdom enjoy the 
favour of God, come not into condemnation, but on 
the last great day, the day of universal judgment, 
shall be accepted by the Judge, shall be placed in 
honour and in safety at his right hand, and shall be 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 271 


introduced by him to the joys of everlasting life. 
Matt. xxv, 31, ff; John v, 24. 

(3.) Christ taught that ¢¢ 7s on the ground of his 
meritorious work that these blessings and privileges 
are to be enjoyed by men. “I am the Way, the 
Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the 
Father but by me. I am the Door; if any man 
enter by me he shall be saved, and shall go in and 
out, and shall find pasture. I am the good Shep- 
herd; the good Shepherd giveth his life for the 
sheep. I am the Vine, ye are the branches; he 
that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth 
forth much fruit, for without me ye can do noth- 
ing.” John xiv, 6; x, 9, 11, 14; xv, 5. In these 
passages (and others of the same kind might easily 
be adduced) the dependence upon Christ of all who 
are saved and blessed as subjects of the kingdom 
of heaven, is most distinctly asserted. At the same 
time the ground of this dependence is not obscurely 
intimated. It is by the substitution of the shep- 
herd, in the endurance of suffering for the sheep— 
by the giving of the life of Christ for the life of 
men, that the salvation and blessedness of the latter 
are to be secured—a doctrine which our Lord ex- 
plicitly enunciated when he said, “The Son 6f man 
came not to be ministered to, but to minister and to 
give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt. xx, 28. 
Our Lord taught, then, that salvation is to be found 
only in-him, and that he is a Saviour for us through 
means of his vicarious and propitiatory death. 


272 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


(4.) Christ taught that entrance into the kingdom 
of God is accompanied and attested by a great spir- 
itual change on the individual who rs the subject of 
it. Nothing can be more explicit than his declara- 
tion to Nicodemus on this head: “ Except a man be 
born again ;” or, as he goes on to explain it, “ born 
of water and the Spirit,” made the subject of a 
divine purification—“ he cannot see the kingdom 
of God.” John iu, 8,5. Nothing can be more em- 
phatic than his solemn assurance to the Jews, that 
without repentance or a thorough change of mind, 
they should all perish. Luke xiii, 3. The same 
truth appears in the parable of the prodigal son, 
whose first step toward good was a determination 
to arise and return to his father. It appears also in 
the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, when 
the self-righteous and self-sufficient worshipper is 
represented as sent away from the temple of God 
unblessed, while the poor conscience-stricken peni- 
tent, who only could confess sin and cry for mercy, 
went down to his house justified and rejoicing. It 
comes out very strikingly in the parable of the mar- 
riage-supper, where one of the guests is found with- 
out a wedding-garment, without the costume proper 
for the place and the occasion, and is accordingly 
ignominiously dismissed and punished. In the teach- 
ing of Christ, nothing is more plain than that the 
love of sin or indifference to its evil, is utterly in- 
compatible with any participation in the privileges 
of the kingdom of heaven. 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 273 


(5.) Christ taught that admssion into the king- 
dom of heaven is open to all who are willing to 
enter. His invitation, as the herald of the king- 
dom, was to all who were needy to come to him 
and be blessed. ‘Come unto me all ye that are 
weary and are heavy laden, and I will give you 
rest,” was the tenor of his address to the multitudes 
who surrounded him; and his complaint of the 
Jews was, that they would not come unto him and 
live. Matt. xi, 28; John v, 40. To the same effect 
are the views which he gave of God as a Father 
who had compassion upon his rebellious and suffer- 
ing children, and had provided for them a method 
of recovery of which all are invited freely to avail 
themselves. So also he taught in his parables. 
When he likened the kingdom of heaven to a feast 
which a rich man had made, he describes the ser- 
vants of the entertainer as sent forth to the streets 
and lanes, to bring in the poor and the maimed, and 
the halt and the blind, and after that as despatched 
to the highways and hedges to constrain the house- 
less, the helpless, and the wandering to come in and 
partake of the rich provision. Luke xiv, 15-23. 
Having “come to call sinners to repentance,” he 
laid no restriction, no limitation on the call. Hav- 
ing “come to seek and to save the lost,” he pledged 
his word as the ambassador of God, that whoso- 
ever, of the lost race of man, would return unto the 
Father through him, should in no wise be cast out. 


His was a message of “peace on earth and good 
18 


Qr4 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


will to men,” as well as of “glory to God in the 
highest.” 

(6.) Christ taught that men are responsible for the 
use they make of the religious privileges thus brought 
within their reach. He laid it down as the rule of 
the kingdom, that “to whomsoever much is given, 
of him shall much be required; and that to whom 
men have committed much, of him they will ask 
the more.” Luke xii, 48. The same great truth is 
taught in his parable of the wise and foolish virgins, 
where those who used their privileges well are com- 
mended and rewarded for it, while those who acted 
otherwise are set forth as warning examples of how 
awful may be the fate even of those who have made 
the fairest appearance and had the best opportuni- 
ties of improvement. Matt. xxv, 1-13. In the par- 
able of the talents, also, this is the great lesson 
taught, and enforced alike by the blessing that 
came upon those who improved their talents, and 
the curse that fell upon him who hid his in the’ 
earth. Matt. xxv, 14-30. In the ethics of Christ, 
no point is more clearly brought out than that priv- 
ilege entails responsibility. He pronounces a deep 
woe upon those who witnessed his works and heard 
his teaching, without being moved thereby to re- 
pentance. He intimates that for a man to come in 
contact with the gospel of the kingdom without be- 
ing attracted by it within the pale of the kingdom, 
is to incur fresh guilt and a darker doom through 
misuse of the very means provided for his salvation 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 275 


and eternal beatitude. And he solemnly warns 
men against the danger of turning a heedless ear 
or opposing a hardened heart to the message of 
salvation he had brought. Matthew xvi, 15, 16; 
John iii, 36. 

(7.) Christ taught that in the kingdom of God 
there is scope and demand for the actiwe exertions 
of all his subjects. He compared it to a vineyard 
into which a father sent his sons to work, or to cul- 
tivate which the owner hired labourers from the 
market-place—to a field which the proprietor sent 
his servants to till and sow—to a net cast into the 
sea for the purpose of catching fish, (Mark xx, 1; 
xxi, 28; xiii, 47,) and such like. With this also the 
main lesson of his parable of the talents accords, 
for it was according to their labour for the advan- 
tage of the master, that the servants who had used 
their talents rightly were commended and rewarded. 
Under the same head come such injunctions ad- 
‘dressed to his disciples as, “Labour not for the 
meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth 
unto everlasting life. Lay up for yourselves treas- 
ure in heaven, &c. Sell that ye have and give 
alms; provide yourselves bags that wax not old, a 
treasure in the heavens that faileth not,” and other 
such like. John vi, 27; Matt. vi, 20; Luke xii, 33. 
In his teaching it is made very clear that no one 
can approve himself a worthy subject of the king- 
dom of heaven who is not prepared and willing to 
be active, diligent, and beneficent. 


276 OHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


The above is but a hasty sketch of what our Lord 
taught concerning the kingdom of heaven while he 
was on earth. It may serve, however, to show how 
faithfully he kept himself to the great design he 
had in view, and how closely he made all his in- 
structions and admonitions bear upon it. No truths 
could be better adapted than these to arouse the 
dormant, to alarm the careless, to guide the inquir- 
ing, to confirm the sincere, and to spiritualize, re- 
fine, and elevate the religious conceptions of all. 


ib 


I proceed now to inquire, What were the peculiar - 
and characteristic excellences of our Lord’s method 
of teaching. 

That the teaching of Christ was marked by some 
excellences of a very peculiar kind, must be evi- 
dent from the effect which he produced as a teacher 
on the minds of the people. We read that on one 
occasion after he had delivered an address in the - 
synagogue of the place where he had been brought 
up, “the people were astonished and said, Whence 
hath this man this wisdom?” Matt. xiii, 54. An- 
other evangelist tells us that Jesus having gone into 
the temple and taught, “the Jews marvelled, say- 
ing, How knoweth this man letters, having never 
learned?” John vii, 15. At a still earlier period 
of his public ministry, we learn that, having ended 
one of his discourses, “the people were astonished 
at his sayings.” Matt. vii, 28. With the surprise 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. QT 


which his teaching excited, there came to be min- 
gled a feeling of admiration and delight, which led 
the multitudes to follow him with eagerness and in- 
terest. One evangelist tells us that “the common 
people heard him gladly.”* So far had this gone, 
that the jealous fears of the rulers were alarmed, 
and they sent men to apprehend him; but these 
emissaries returned only to confirm the popular 
judgment, and to give still more striking evidence 
of the power of his eloquence. “ Never man,” said 
they, “spake like this man.” John vii, 46. 

It must be abundantly evident, that to produce 
such surprise and awaken such interest, there must 
have been something quite new, altogether peculiar 
and sw generis in the teaching of Christ. There 
was no lack of teachers among the Jews; they were 
only too abundantly supplied with them, being such 
as they were; so that it could not be the singu- 
larity of the occupation which excited the wonder, 
quickened the curiosity, and interested the feelings 
of the people. Nor were the Jews indifferent to 
the merits of their ordinary instructors; they only 
too highly estimated them, and listened to their ad- 
dresses with the feelings of men who, whether they 
learned much from them or not, could never indulge 
the hope of finding any better or higher. There 
must have been something, then, in Christ’s whole 
mode of teaching—in the matter or manner, or both, 
of his instructions, that placed him by himself, and 


* Literally, “ the mob,” or “ masses,” 6 7oAv¢ 6yA0¢. Mark xii, 37. 


278 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


cast into the shade the pretensions of all contem- 
porary rabbis. ; 

What was this something? In answer to this 
inquiry we cannot do better than accept the state- 
ment of one of the evangelists when, in assigning a 
reason for the astonishment felt by the multitude at 
Christ’s teaching, he says, “For he taught them as 
one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Matt. 
vii, 29. There was, then, an authority,—a power 
(é£ovoia) in Christ’s teaching, which subjugated the 
minds of the people to it, and made them esteem 
him higher than the learned men and accredited 
religious teachers of their nation. 

In the power which marked our Lord’s teaching 
it is manifest there was nothing stern, overbearing, 
orappalling. He did not try to work on the physical 
sensibilities of his hearers by loud tones or vehement 
gestures; nor did he seek to exercise the tyranny 
of terror over timid or superstitious minds. On the 
contrary, calmness, gentleness, persuasiveness, were 
prevailing characteristics of his teaching. Save 
when constrained to dart the lightning of his 
rebukes against the Pharisees and their party, he 
fulfilled the descriptions of ancient prophecy: “ His 
doctrine dropped as the rain and distilled as the 
dew. It came down as rain on the mown grass, 
and showers that water the earth. The bruised 
reed he did not break, nor quench the smoking 
flax; he did not strive nor ery, neither was his 
voice heard in the streets.” The power which he 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 279 


wielded was that influeuce over the springs of 
human action which the reasoner seeks to attain 
by argument, which the rhetorician arrives at by 
declamation, and which the accomplished orator se- 
cures by the happy combination and fusion of both. 

In Christ’s teaching there was the authority of 
truth clearly enunciated and earnestly enforced. 
In this there is a mighty power. Wherever truth 
is uttered boldly, forcibly, and with manifest con- 
fidence in it on the part of the speaker, it seldom 
fails to arrest attention, and more or less to impress 
the hearers. It may arouse their hostility, it may 
provoke them to opposition, it may even stir them 
up to madness and fury; but it seldom falls power- 
less, or leaves the mind as it found it. And, where 
men are honest, candid, and convincible, it tells upon 
them mightily, fixing itself in their understandings, 
swaying their judgments, and erecting an empire 
for itself in their hearts. 

Christ not only forcibly declared and expounded 
truth, but he spoke with the authority of one who 
felt himself infallible. Te had not merely learned 
truth; he was truth. He could not only recommend 
truth; he spoke as one who had a right to enforce 
it. In this respect ‘he thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God.” While the ancient prophets 
inculeated their messages with a “Thus saith the 
Lord,” Christ did not hesitate to assume to himself 
the prime place of authority, and introduce his doe- 
trines with, Z say unto you.” Backed and vindi- 


280 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


cated by his mighty works, and sustained by his 
teaching concerning himself as one with the Father, 
such lofty assumptions could not but lend impres- 
siveness and solemnity to his teaching. 

But while Christ thus spake with authority, it 
was not as the scribes. They, too, had their au- 
thority. But unlike that of Christ, it was baseless ‘ 
and it could be sustained, therefore, only by artificial 
and violent means. Without substantial claims 
upon the respect of the people, they had to employ 
arrogance and pretension to cover their real insig- 
nificance and unworthiness. Paupers in knowledge, 
they could not afford to expose their resources to the 
scrutiny of the world. Pretenders in science, they 
dared not confide their cause to the simple, straight- 
forward, pellucid defences of honesty and truth. 

As contrasted with their teaching, that of Christ 
was marked by condescension and kindness. How 
different was the light in which he and they viewed 
the objects of their teaching! The language in 
which they spoke of the people ran thus: “This 
people, who knoweth not the law, is cursed.” John 
vii, 49. The language in which he spoke of the 
people was to this effect: “If thou hadst known, 
even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that 
belong unto thy peace.” Luke xix, 42. “O Jern- 
salem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, 
and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often 
would I have gathered thy children together, even 
as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 281 


and ye would not.” Matt. xxiii, 37. The one em- 
bodies the feeling of insolent contempt; the other 
is the outpouring of the deepest tenderness. The 
one was doubtless spoken with a sneer; the other, as 
we know, came forth accompanied by tears. The 
one is the language of men whose only desire was 
to keep the masses in ignorance, that they might 
trample them under foot ; the other is the language 
of one who desired nothing so much as that all 
mental darkness should be dispelled, that the soul 
of man might be elevated and refined, and that the 
race might be rescued from ignorance and all its 
concomitant evils, and brought to enjoy the glorious 
liberty of intelligence, and purity, and holiness. 
With such diversity of feeling in relation to the ob- 
jects of their teaching, it is not wonderful that while 
the authority of the scribes was that of overbearing 
and scornful dogmatism, the authority of Christ 
was tempered and confirmed by a calm, dignified, 
illuminative persuasiveness, which at once enlight- 
ened and subdued, at once humbled, elevated, and 
blessed. 

Another feature in which the teaching of our 
Lord surpassed that of the scribes, was the wesdom 
and skill with which lis lessons were adapted to the 
different classes of his hearers. With the scribes 
there seems to have been but one kind of instruc- 
tion for all, which the people might appreciate if 
they could, but which the teacher felt and showed 
no anxiety to adapt to their capacities or make in- 


282 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


teresting to their tastes. Our Lord, on the other 
hand, invariably estimated the intellectual capacity 
of his audience, and adapted his teaching to that; 
desiring above all things to be understood, and that 
his hearers might profit by what they heard. He 
taught men “as they were able to bear it.’ When 
he had a master in Israel for an auditor, he spoke 
to him as one rabbi might to another, on the ab- 
struser questions of theology, and in the figurative 
language in which eastern sages are wont to clothe 
their doctrines. When he had a promiscuous as- 
semblage before him, he spake either in the lan- 
guage of plain and pointed address, or he set forth 
‘his lessons in that narrative garb which from time 
immemorial has been the favourite vehicle of teach- 
ing in the East. When he more especially addressed 
his disciples, he spoke as to persons to whom it was 
given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom 
of God. And when he took little children for his 
scholars, and taught them as they gathered round 
his feet, it was in such a way that their young 
hearts were gained, and they remembered him 
when he came riding into Jerusalem on the day of 
his triumph, and made the welkin ring with their 
shouts of ‘Hosannah, hosannah, in the highest.” 
The great doctrines which Christ came to teach 
were ever in substance the same for all; but with 
consummate skill he fitted the method and the 
measure of his teaching to the capacities and pre- 
vious advantages of his hearers. The food which 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 283 


he dispensed for the minds and hearts of men, was 
at all times that which was “convenient” for those 
to whom it was given—milk for babes, strong meat 
for those of maturer growth. In announcing the 
gospel of the kingdom he ever so presented it as to 
adapt its good news to all, however different their 
circumstances, however varied their capacity. 

In fine, our Lord’s teaching surpassed that of the 
scribes in practical utility and earnestness. As 
teachers of morals and religion, the scribes were 
really little better than solemn triflers. There was 
no substance, no depth, no reality in what they 
taught. It is to their doctrine Paul refers when he 
counsels Titus to “avoid foolish questions and gene- 
alogies, and strivings about the law, for they are un- 
profitable and vain.” Titus iii, 9. The Talmud has 
preserved enough of their speculations to enable us 
to form some idea of what sort of teaching they 
were wont to supply to the people, and more than 
enough to satisfy us that we have sustained no seri- 
ous calamity in the loss of the rest. Curious and 
idle speculations they for the most part are—as, for 
instance, about the size of Og, King of Bashan, 
whom they make out to have been so high, that 
Moses, though himself twenty feet in height, only 
reached as high as the giant’s ancle;—and with 
these are mixed up ridiculous legends surpassing in 
wild absurdity all that Western fancy in its most 
erratic movements has ever contrived ;—nice pieces 
of casuistry about the tithing of “mint, anise, and 


984 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


cumin ;”—and traditionary expositions of the Mo- 
saic institute which had no effect but that of evap- 
orating the spirit and setting aside the precepts of 
that code. These, and such as these, were the fa- 
vourite products of rabbinical genius, and may be 
supposed to have formed the main topics of a 
scribe’s discourse in the days of our Lord. One 
wonders not that the people had had a surfeit of 
such food, and had chosen rather to starve and be 
cursed than have any more of it. It was a dainty 
repast indeed to press upon men who had souls in 
them ready to perish for lack of knowledge! No 
wonder that when the great Teacher appeared 
“they were very attentive to hear him.” His was 
a different provision for the sustenance of their 
souls. His was “a feast of fat things, of wines on 
the lees, well refined.” Like a good shepherd, he 
led these fainting and deserted sheep “to green 
pastures and by the side of still waters.” None 
who came to him honestly to learn, were sent away 
untaught. None who came for the kernel of truth 
were sent away with the empty shell. He never 
gave any who asked bread of him a stone. He 
never gave any a scorpion who asked him for a 
fish. He was ever an honest and an earnest teacher, 
dealing with real things in the matter of his teach- 
ing, and seeking in all that he said “the profit of 
those that heard him, that they might be saved.” 
What he taught was adapted to the felt wants and 
longings of the human heart, and had only to be 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 285 


received to convey light and guidance and purity 
to the soul. 

With so many points of superiority in his teach- 
ing over that of the scribes, the people must have 
been stupid indeed, had they not observed the dif. 
ference, and hailed him with admiration and de- 
light. No wonder, then, that the fame of his teach- 
ing went through all the regions of Judea and 
Galilee. No wonder that the common people, un- 
fettered by those chains of prejudice which kept 
back the higher classes, should everywhere have 
heard him gladly. A new life, in consequence of 
his teaching and miracles, had come to pervade for’ 
a season the decrepid and decaying body of Jewish 
society. Men felt that once more a teacher sent 
from God had come to dwell among them. They 
followed him with eagerness, and listened to him 
with reverence, for they believed that “God was 
with him.” 


LV... 


Such was the effect produced—such the belief 
impressed upon the minds of the Jews in reference 
to the teaching of Christ. Was this effect legiti- 
mate? was this belief just? If it was, then we 
have only to accept their conclusions and receive 
the doctrine of Christ as divine; if it was not, the 
question arises, how we are to account for the exist- 
ence of such teaching, and for the effect it pro- 
duced. 


286 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Now, it would be vain to deny the orzginality of 
our Lord’s doctrine. In substance and in develop- 
ment it was emphatically hisown. There is nothing 
like it in heathen, nothing like it in Jewish, litera- 
ture. His teaching has created a new epoch in the 
history of truth. A new luminary was then fixed 
in the firmament of thought. His is a glory as a 
teacher which none can deprive him of—none can 
share with him. 

Equally in vain would it be to deny the unequalled 
grandeur and vastness of his doctrine. His great 
central conception of the kingdom of God—a king- 
dom based on truth, administered by moral influ- 
ences, pervaded by love, and holiness, and joy, and 
open to all men of whatever class or clime—is a 
conception as magnificent as it is original. And, 
with this, all the rest of his doctrine is in perfect 
and beautiful harmony, every line of truth in his 
system being like a radius starting from and con- 
ducting to this central idea, and the whole form- 
ing one perfect sphere of divine knowledge. 

Once more, it would be idle to deny the perfect 
adaptation of this body of truth to the nature and 
wants of man. This has now been made matter of 
world-wide experiment. The words which Christ 
spake have been carried to men of every nation and 
character; and men of every nation and character 
have felt that, as Christ himself said to them, “they 
are spirit, and they are life.” John vi, 638. Of other 
religious systems it must be admitted that they are 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 287 


more or less local or national in their character; of 
this alone can it be said that it is fitted for man as 
man wherever he is found; like the sunlight, which 
suits all eyes alike, or the air which men born in 
every quarter of the globe alike can breathe. 

Now, when we connect these facts with the known 
facts of Christ’s early history, we cannot but feel 
ourselves shut up to the admission that his teaching 
must have been from heaven. Viewing him simply 
as the history presents him, he comes before us as a 
member of a family in very humble circumstances, 
living in a retired part of Judea, among people pro- 
verbial for ignorance and dulness, where he had no 
means of acquiring much of even such learning as 
the schools of his nation afforded, and were he was 
shut out from all acquaintance with the literature, 
the culture, or the exploits of the civilized nations 
of antiquity. In these unfavourable circumstances, 
and labouring at a handicraft trade for his daily 
bread, he grows up to manhood, when suddenly he 
bursts upon the world as the teacher of a system of 
religious and moral truth perfectly original, elevated 
by it purity, its profundity, and its comprehensive- 
ness above all rivalry, and adapted to the capacity 
and wants of all peoples and all times; which he 
unfolds with a skill, a knowledge of human nature, 
an attractiveness and a power that set all compe- 
tition at defiance. Such a picture may well pro- 
voke the question, “ Whence hath this man this 
wisdom ?” 


288 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


We cannot say that he had it from books ; for, 
with the exception of the Old Testament, it may be 
doubted whether our Lord had read any books; and 
though the germ of his principal doctrines may be 
found in the Old Testament, it lies so hidden there 
that it is only by the reflected light of his teaching 
that we can clearly discover it. He could not get it 
Srom the teaching of others ; for, as we have already 
seen, any iufluence that might have been made to 
bear upon him from this source would have rather 
prevented than facilitated the formation of such a 
doctrine as his. He could not get it from what men 
call the spirit of his age, an influence which often 
creates great men, who catch up and give fitting 
utterance to ideas which have been gradually grow- 
ing up in the minds of the community and pressing 
for articulate utterance; for never was teacher less 
at one with the spirit of the age in which he lived 
than Jesus of Nazareth; never did the prevailing 
opinions, and prejudices, and expectations of any 
people receive less countenance from a public 
teacher than those of his contemporaries received 
from him. But if not from books, if not from edu- 
cation, if not from the influences of association, if 
not from the prevailing tendency of his age, there 
are but two other sources from-which he could have 
derived his doctrine. The one is divine inspiration, 
the other is the unaided resources of his own genius. 
To this alternative we are shut up; which side shall 
we adopt? If we take the latter, it is clogged with 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 289 


insuperable difficulties. It involves the supposition 
that a humble Galilean peasant, placed in the most 
unfavorable circumstances for acquiring large and 
liberal views of things,—without books, without in- 
tercourse with men, surrounded by ignorance and 
prejudice, and having to labour for his daily bread, 
was able to excogitate by the mere force of his own 
intellect a system of doctrine which not only throws 
all the other efforts of human genius into the shade, 
but presupposes a universal acquaintance with the 
wants and susceptibilities of man, a profound knowl- 
edge of the deepest problems of the human spirit, and 
a surpassing power of adapting his doctrines to the 
catholic condition of the race, so that in all ages 
and in all times they shall be found equally true 
and equally serviceable. This, if we think of it, is 
really a greater miracle—at least a far more incredi- 
ble thing—than that God should have commissioned 
and inspired him to speak as he did. In the latter 
supposition there is nothing impossible, nothing in 
itself incredible; in the former there is that which 
the common sense an! the common experience of 
the race would pronounce to be utterly beyond the 
limits of the possible or credible. 

Nor is this all. If we adopt this incredible hy- 
pothesis, we must take it hampered with the no 
less serious moral difficulty, that this unsurpassed 
teacher, this being of unequalled genius, nobleness, 
gentleness, and goodness, was, after all, an am- 


postor. For such he undoubtedly was, if he was 
19 


290 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


not a teacher sent from God to communicate to 
men the words of God. We cannot separate this 
pretension from the rest of his teaching. He him- 
self put it in the foreground. In the most explicit 
terms, and with the most solemn assurances, he as- 
serted his divine mission; and on the ground of 
that claimed submission to his doctrines. We can 
come, then, to no conclusion but that if he was not 
divinely commissioned, he throughout and delib- 
erately endeavoured to impose upon the people by 
assuming a dignity which he did not possess. Shall 
we, then, adopt this revolting conclusion? Shall 
we say that this wise, this sublime, this otherwise 
blameless teacher—this man of serene intelligence 
and elevated virtue—was, after all, a man whose 
whole public life was a falsehood; who was of a 
lower grade morally than even the Pharisees, whose 
selfishness and insincerity he so sternly rebuked; 
who, with the words of universal charity and sub- 
lime purity on his lips, could stoop to the meanness 
and wickedness of deceiving mea in a matter in 
which their dearest interests we e involved? Surely 
every lesson which experience and philosophy have 
taught us of the moral nature of man must be re- 
versed or obliterated before anything so monstrous 
as this can be credited. 

But even this is not all. If Jesus Christ was not 
a divinely-commissioned teacher, we must not only, 
in the face of all reason, believe him an impostor, 
but we must believe him an impostor who perpe- 


CHARACTER OF CHRIST. 291 


trated his incredible meanness and wickedness gra- 
tuitously. For what did he gain by it? what could 
he hope to gain by it? Not fame; not wealth; not 
power; not any of the things for which alone men 
consent to sacrifice integrity and make shipwreck 
of conscience. He must have been an impostor for 
the mere love of it; and his love of it must have 
been so intense that it led him to sacrifice for it not 
only integrity and conscience, but everything that 
man most eagerly pursues and covets in this world, 
even life itself! Who can receive an absurdity like 
this? It would be an insult to any man’s under- 
standing to suspect him of believing it. 

The infidel hypothesis, then, in respect to the 
sources of our Lord’s teaching conducts us to con- 
clusions which are incredible and absurd. Were 
it not that it is necessary that this should be dis- 
tinctly seen, for the purpose of refuting that hy- 
pothesis, the conclusions to which it leads are so 
repulsive, both to intellect and heart, that one 
would willingly refrain from even the briefest 
enunciation of them. 

From such labyrinths of error and absurdity 
there is no escape for those who will not accept 
our Lord’s own testimony as to the source of his 
doctrine. If it was not of God, it and he stand 
before us as unexplained phenomena — gigantic 
anomalies that set philosophy and experience alike 
at defiance. Admit his divine commission, and all 
becomes intelligible and credible. If it was not the 


292, CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


mere man that spake, but God that spake through 
the man, no wonder that his doctrine was so tran- 
scendent—no wonder that “he spake as never man 
spake.” The marvel in this case would have been 
had it been otherwise. 


CONCLUSION. 


In the preceding pages, I have endeavoured to make 
good the following positions :— 

1. That the four Gospels are the genuine and en- 
tire productions of the men whose names they bear; 
and that, consequently, they must have been written 
within the space of an ordinary life-time, from the 
date of our Lord’s death. 

2. That the character which these writers ascribe 
to our Lord, the events they narrate respecting him, 
and the discourses which they report as his, must 
be received by us as historically true; it being 
morally impossible for the writers to have contrived 
such an account, or obtained credit for it at the 
time, if it had been false. And, ° 

3. That if all this be true, the Author of Chris- 
tianity must be received and reverenced as a di- 
vinely commissioned teacher, whose doctrines are a 
revelation to us from God; it being incredible that 
any man should be what Christ was, do what he did, 
and speak as he spake, and yet be a mere impostor, 


CHARAOTER OF CHRIST. 293 


which is the only alternative if we do not receive 
him as a messenger from God. 

Such is in substance the argument of this volume. 
In presenting it, I have endeavoured to rest my 
main conclusions on the great fundamental law of 
scientific investigation—the Law of Parcimony, 
which prescribes that causes are not to be multi- 
plied beyond what are sufficient to explain the 
given phenomena, and that the simplest and most 
obvious causes which will explain the phenomena 
are to be preferred.* On this principle all true 
science rests; and to show that it is departed from 
in any case, is to show that the conclusion sought to 
be established in that case is unsound and unphilo- 
sophical. That it is grossly departed from by the 
hypothesis of the infidel, and is obeyed only by the 
hypothesis of the believer, in reference to the phe- 
nomena presented by the existence and contents of 
the Gospels, it has been my aim to evince. 

If I have succeeded in this endeavour, therefore, 
I have proved infidelity unphilosophical, and shown 

* « The Law of Parcimony (as the rule ought to be distinctively 
called) the most important maxim in regulation of philosophical 
procedure, where it is necessary to resort to an hypothesis, has, 
though always virtually in force, never perhaps been adequately 
enounced. It should be thus expressed :— Neither MORE, nar MORE 
ONEROUS causes are to be assumed than are necessary to account for 
the phenomena. The rule thus falls naturally into two parts; in 
the one more, in the other more onerous, causes are prohibited.””—- 
Sir W. Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy, &c., p. 628, second 
edition, where the law is expounded with that exact and full mas- 


tery of the subject which marks the writings of this greatest of 
living philosophers. 


294 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


that a belief in the divine mission of Jesus Christ 
rests upon the same basis on which the whole splen- 
did structure of modern experimental science rests. 
I have proved also that a mere negative scepticism 
is in this case impossible; for, as the facts must 
have a cause by which they may be accounted for, 
if we refuse the Christian hypothesis, we must em- 
brace that of positive ek incredible and un- 
philosophical as it is. 

_ Whether I have thus been successful in my en- 
deavours or not, I must leave it with the reader to 
judge. I may be permitted, however, to say that 
I have anxiously sought to avoid all unfair or dubi- 
ous means of gaining my end. I have made no 
appeal to the feelings or prejudices of my readers. 
‘I have asked no aid from the resources or appliances 
of rhetoric. I have made no attempts to damage 
my opponents or their cause by vituperation, sar- 
casm, or ridicule. I have tried to be calmly ra- 
tional, and simply argumentative throughout. May 
I hope that this will entitle what I have written to 
the candid and earnest perusal of those whose hy- 
pothesis I have laboured to eliminate, and whose 
position I have endeavoured to subvert? 

“Candid and earnest!” Yes; for the question is 
more than a question of life and death; there hang 
on it the issues of Erernrry. 


APPENDIX. 


Note A. Page 62. 
JUSTIN MARTYR’S QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS. 


Tar the reader may judge, in some measure, at least, for 
himself, of the degree in which Justin’s alleged quotations from 
the Gospels depart from the existing text, I shall set down here 
those quotations which are adduced by Eichhorn, and on 
which he has based his opinion that the Memoirs of Justin 
were not any of the extant Gospels. 

“In the Memoirs it is written: Except your righteousness 
exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees ye shall not enter into 
the kingdom of heaven.”—Dial. ewm Tryph., p. 388. Comp. 
Matt. v, 20. 

“Do not these things to be seen of men; otherwise ye have 
no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” —Avpol. ii, 
p. 68. Comp. Matt. vi, 1. 

“Let your good works shine before men, that they seeing 
them may admire your Father who is in the heavens.” ‘ Be- 
ware of false prophets which shall come to you outwardly in- 
vested in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening 
wolves.”—Dial. c. Tryph. Comp. Matt. v, 16; vii, 15. 

“Take no thought what ye shall eat or what ye shall put on. 
Are ye not better than the fowls? and God feedeth them. 
Take no thought, then, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall put 
on; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of 
these things. But seek ye the kingdom of heaven, and all 
those shall be added to you.”—Apol. ii, p. 62. Comp. Matt. 
vi, 25-83. 

“Show us a sign; and he answered them, A wicked and 
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall 


296 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


be given unto it but the sign of Jonah.”—Dvual., p. 334. 
Com. Matt. xvi, 1, 4. 

‘Elias truly shall come and shall restore all things. But I 
say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him 
not, but have done to him whatsoever they listed. And it is 
written that then his disciples understood that he spake unto 
them of John the Baptist.”"—Dvzal., p. 269. Comp. Matt. 
xvii, 11-138. 

“There are some who were made eunuchs of men; and 
there are who were born eunuchs; and there are who have 
made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. 
But all receive not this.’—Apol. ii, p. 62. Comp. Matt. 
xix, 12, . 

* And one coming to him and saying, Good Master, he re- 
plied, saying, There is none good but God alone, who made all 
things.” —Apol. ii, p. 63. Comp. Matt. xix, 17. 

“Some having asked him if it is proper to pay tribute; he 
answered, Tell me whose image hath the money? and they 
said, Ozesar’s. And he replied again to them, Render to Cesar 
the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are 
God’s.”—Apol. ii, p. 64. Comp. Matt. xxii, 17-21. 

‘Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay 
tithe of mint and rue, but the love of God and judgment ye do 
not attend to. Whited sepulchres which appear beautiful out- 
wardly, but within are full of dead men’s bones.”—Dial., 
p. 238. Comp. Matt. xxiii, 23, 27. 

“Give to him that eth and from him that wishes to 
borrow turn not away. For if ye lend to them of whom ye 
hope to receive, what new thing do ye, for even the publicans 
do this. But lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth 
where moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break through.”-— 
Dial., p. 64. Comp. Matt. v, 42; Luke vi, 34; Matt. v, 46; 
vi,’19. 

“Be ye kind and merciful as your Father is kind and mer- 
ciful, and maketh his sun to rise on sinners, and on just and on 
evil.”— Aol. ii, p. 62. Oomp. Luke vi, 36; Matt. v, 45. 

‘A sweat like great drops of blood poured from him as he 
prayed and said, If it be possible let this cup pass from me.”— 
Dial., p.3831. Comp. Luke xxii, 44; Matt. xxvi, 39. . 

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and 


APPENDIX. 297 


all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.”—Dial., p. 821. 
Comp. Matt. xxii, 37; Mark x, 27. 

“They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but 
shall be equal unto the angels, the children of God, being of 
the resurrection.”—Dial., p. 308. Comp. Matt. xxii, 30; Luke 
xx, 36. 

Besides these, Eichhorn gives Justin’s account of the birth 
of Christ, which is made up from the accounts of Matthew and 
Luke, but cannot be called a quotation from them, as it is Jus- 
tin’s own digest of the history, for which he gives no authority. 
The same may also be said of some of the above-cited passages. 

On reviewing these passages it will perhaps surprise many 
that out of such materials even Eichhorn’s ingenuity could 
extort so much as a plausible argument for his position. May 
we not apply to such a perverse reasoner the language of the 
slave in Terence— 

Nihilo plus agas 
Quam si des operam ut cum ratione insanias ?* 


Note B. Page 66. 
STRAUSS ON IRENAUS. 

The manner in which Strauss deals with the testimony of 
Treneus as a witness for the extant Gospel of John is curious, 
and, at the same time, somewhat characteristic of this destruc- 
tive polemic. After admitting that much weight cannot be 
attached to the silence of Polycarp regarding the claims of that 
Gospel, he goes on to complain of that of Irenzeus, who, he 
says, “was called upon to defend this Gospel from the attacks 
of those who denied its composition by John, but who, neither 
on this occasion, nor once in his diffuse work, has brought for- 
ward the weighty authority of his apostolic master (of Poly- 
carp) as to this fact.” If I understand this passage aright, Dr. 
Strauss means to assert that the Gospel according to John was, 
in the days of Irenzus, assailed by some who maintained that 
it had not been written by that apostle, and that Irenzous was 
called to defend it against these assaults. Now, I should like 


* Kunuch i, 1, 17. 


298 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


to know what Dr. Strauss means by saying that Irenzeus was 
cabled to defend the genuineness of John’s Gospel. By whom 
or what was he called? I can think of no other call that he 
had but such as his undertaking to write against all extant 
heresies imposed upon him. If it is to this Dr. Strauss refers, 
his words involve an admission fatal to his main position; for 
it would follow from them, that the denial of the apostolic 
authorship of John’s Gospel was, in the middle of the second 
century, regarded as a heresy—in other words, that the unani- 
mous consent of the Christian Churches had at that time been 
secured for the fourth Gospel as the production of the Apostle 
John. How this could have happened, had that production 
been a forgery, or how in that case the contents of the fourth 
Gospel can be.a collection of myths, I leave it with Dr. Strauss 
and his followers to explain. 

But to what attacks on the genuineness of John’s Gospel 
does Dr. Strauss refer in the above extract? He of course had 
the work of Irenzus before him in making this assertion; I 
wish he had given us a reference by which to find the passages 
on which he founds his statement. I have endeavoured to 
discover them, but in vain. The only passage I have found at 
all appearing to sanction Dr. Strauss’s assertion, is that in 
which Irensus charges certain heretics, whom he does not 
name, as guilty of “repelling at once the prophetic spirit and 
the gospel,”* because they would not receive the doctrine of 
the Paraclete as taught in the Gospel according to John. But 
nobody of sound head would hold this as evidence that these 
heretics rejected the fourth Gospel as spurious; it plainly 
means that they refused to submit to the teaching of that Gos- 
pel. I begin to suspect that these attacks to which Irenewus 
was called to reply, must be classed among the myths which 
of late years have been arising very plentifully, and, no doubt, 
very unconsciously in the minds of that large mass of persons 
in Germany, who, on the strength of that fragmentary learning 
with which their hand-books and text-books are filled, pass for 
great scholars—especially at a distance. 

The best reason that can be given ewhy Treneus did not 
adduce the authority of Polycarp in proof of the genuineness 
of John’s Gospel is, that in his day this was not called in ques- 


* Adv, Haer., 1. iii, c. 11. 


APPENDIX. 299 


tion. Whenever occasion requires, this ancient father at- 
tests the apostolic origin of this Gospel in the most distinct 
terms. 


eee 


Note C. Page 68, 


STRAUSS ON THE TESTIMONY OF HERACLEON AND OTHERS TO 
JOHN’S GOSPEL. 


‘“‘ Whether or not the fourth Gospel originally bore the name 
of John, remains uncertain,” says Dr. Strauss. ‘‘ We meet with 
it [the Gospel or the name ?] first among the Valentinians and 
the Montanists about the middle of the second century.” Not 
quite so late; for to say nothing of the almost contemporary 
testimony of Basilides, the age of Heracleon cannot be placed 
so far down as A. D. 150; Cave places it in the year 126, and 
Basnage in the year 125. But let that pass; and let us sup- 
pose that the references to John’s Gospel by Heracleon are not 
earlier than the middle of the second century. Well, of what 
kind are these references? Are they brief and dubious? By 
no means; Heracleon wrote elaborate commentaries on John’s 
Gospel, the design of which was to show the accordance of his 
views with those of the Apostle John: no trifling evidence, we 
should say, of the general reception in his day of this Gospel 
as genuine. “Its apostolic origin was, however, (immediately 
after,) denied by the so-called Alogi, who ascribed it to Cerin- 
thus.” Indeed! pray, most learned doctor, who told you that ? 
On this point Dr. Strauss gives us no information; but as 
Augustine says what he here affirms, and Epiphanius attests the 
same, as far as regards the renouncing of John’s Gospel by the 
Alogi, (though they say nothing to justify the “ immediately 
after’ by which Dr. Strauss has parenthetically, but unhesi- 
tatingly, assigned a place for the Alogi in the second century,) 
I suppose these are his authorities. They have been long ago 
examined by Lardner, and found wanting. The very existence 
of the Alogi is even declared by him to be a fable—what Dr. 
Strauss would call a myth—‘invented upon the occasion of 
the controversy of Caius, Dionysius, and others, with the Mil- 
lenarians, in the third century.”"* But of course Dr. Strauss 


* Works, vol. ix, p. 517. 


3800 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


is far too learned a man to know much of what has been said 
by such a mere sciolist as Lardner! ‘ The earliest quotation,” 
he goes on to say, ‘expressly stated to be from the Gospel of 
John is found in Theophilus of Antioch, about the year 172.” 
This is true; but Tatian before him had quoted, without ex- 
pressly stating it, from John’s Gospel;* Ignatius had already 
alluded to it more than once in passages where Eichhorn says 
the allusion ‘tis manifest” and cannot be denied;} and the 
words of Theophilus themselves are such that it is impossible 
to read them without feeling convinced that in his day the 
Gospel according to John was held in the profoundest rever- 
ence as an inspired book by the Christians. ‘‘ We are taught,” 
says he, “by the sacred Scriptures, and all the inspired, of 
whom John says, Jn the beginning,” &c.t No one can doubt 
from this, that the Christians of the age of Theophilus regarded 
John’s Gospel as on a par with the sacred and divinely-inspired 
writings to which they deferred as the supreme rule of their 
faith and practice. But, says Dr. Strauss, “lastly, there were 
two Johns, the apostle and the presbyter, living contempo- 
raneously at Ephesus;” and this, he adds, is “a circumstance 
which has not received sufficient attention in connexion with 
the most ancient testimonies in favour of the derivation from 
John—of the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and of the Gospels 
and Epistles, on the other.” What degree of attention Dr. 
Strauss would wish paid to that somewhat problematical 
person, John the presbyter, (even in the days of Eusebius there 
were many who doubted whether any such person had ever 
existed,) I am unable to conjecture; but when we see his 
sceptical countrymen thrusting forward this mere nominis 
umbra on every occasion as a rival of the apostle, in respect to 
the authorship of those books which are ascribed to the latter 
in the New Testament, I am inclined to think that, considering 
how little we know concerning him, insufferably too much 
notice has been paid to him. Such a mode of dealing with 
evidence in a question like this, appears to me marvellously 
foolish. Ido not doubt the existence of John the presbyter ; 
I admit it, on the testimony of Papias ; but—because two men 

* See Lardner, vol. ii, p. 189; Hichhorn’s Hinleitung, b. ii, s. 231 


Leipzig, 1835. 
{ Ibid., s. 233. { Ad Autolycum, cap. 31. 


APPENDIX. 301 


lived at the same time, in the same city, bearing the same 
name, the one of whom was a person of great distinction, 
while of the other it is barely known that he existed and held 
oftice in a Christian society—are we to be told that the mere 
fact of the latter’s existence is to render doubtful all claims of 
the former to the authorship of books which bear his name 
and have been uniformly ascribed tohim? Christian antiquity 
' knew but one John, as it knew but one Paul, simply so styled. 
No doubt there were many Pauls and many Johns among the 
Christians in the days of the apostles; just as in England there 
were doubtless many Bacons, and many Newtons, and many 
Miltons, living at the same time with the great authors of the 
“Novum Organum,” the “Principia,” and the ‘“ Paradise 
Lost.” But, as with us the man who has immortalized the 
common name is held to have appropriated it, and to be Bacon, 
Newton, or Milton, in a sense in which no other Bacon, New- 
ton, or Milton ever can be; so in the Christian Church of the 
first centuries, each apostle was held to have appropriated the 
name he bore, in a sense in which it was exclusively his own. 
When, therefore, any Christian writer attests that John did so 
and so, or wrote such and such books, it is as certain that he 
means the Apostle John, as with us the expression, “ Milton 
wrote such and such a work,” would be certainly understood 
of the Milton who wrote “‘ Paradise Lost.” Instead, therefore, 
of desiring to see anything more made of this John the pres- 
byter in the way Dr. Strauss specifies, I should much rather, 
for the sake of letters, and the reputation of German scholar- 
ship, see him remanded to that obscurity from which the rest- 
less pedantry of the sceptical school has attempted to drag 
him. 

But, after all, what would Dr. Strauss gain in the case be- 
fore us, by calling up the shade of the venerable presbyter ? 
Grant that it is possible that he, and not the Apostle John, 
wrote the fourth Gospel, (which is granting one of the most 
improbable positions in the whole range of literary history,) it 
would still appear that this Gospel was produced by a contem- 
porary of the apostle. Dr. Strauss affirms that the two Johns 
were contemporaries, and if so, let the doubt be ever so great 
as to which of them wrote the Gospel, there can be no doubt 
that that Gospel was written by the end of the first or the be- 


302 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


ginning of the second century. In his eagerness, therefore, to 
throw discredit upon the claims of the apostle, Dr. Strauss has 
unwittingly relinquished his own cardinal position—that all the 
Gospels are productions of the latter part of the second century. 


Note D. Page 216. 
DEFINITION OF A MIRAOLE. 


It does not form any part of my plan in this volume to crit- 
icise the divergent sentiments of those who have written in 
defence of Christianity. I have therefore taken no note in the 
text of the various definitions which have been offered of a 
miracle by writers on this subject, but have contented myself 
with pursuing my own line of investigation to what seemed to 
me a legitimate result. It may be of use, however, to some of 
my readers, and of interest to all, if I place before them a 
classified statement of the various meanings in which it has 
been proposed to understand this term; an attempt which, so 
far as I am aware, has not yet been made, at least on any ex- 
tended scale. 

The definitions of miracle may be classed under two primary 
heads, according as the miracles of Scripture are held to be— 
1. Absolute; or, 2. Relative. 

I. Assorute Miracres.—(Miracula simpliciter, rigorosa, vera, 
proprie dicta, &c.) Defined as :— 

1. Acts contrary to the course of nature; violations or 
suspensions of nature’s laws. 

2. Acts beyond the course of nature. 
a As not capable of being accounted for by any of the 

known powers of nature. 

6 As falling within the sphere of a higher nature. 

8. [Including the two former.] Acts contrary to or out 
of the course of nature. 

II. Revartve Mrracres.—(Miracula quoad nos, miracula 
secundum quid, apparentia, &c.) Defined as:— 

4, Acts resulting from natural laws which are unknown to 
us. These are construed by us to be divine, 
a Inasmuch as they surpass our comprehension. 


APPENDIX. 303 


6 Inasmuch as the occurrence of them is prognosticated 
or foretold by the party apparently performing them. 

5. Acts in themselves simply marvellous, but which we 
discover to be performed by God from the tenor of the 
doctrines taught by those who perform them. 

6. Acts which were simply inexplicable to the parties who 
witnessed or have narrated them, but which are not so 
to us, or may, in the progress of knowledge, cease to be 
so to our successors. 

As illustrative of this scheme, I subjoin some extracts and 
references under each of the heads, 


No. 1. 


Curysostom :—“ A miracle (@adua) is a demonstration of the 
divine dignity.” ‘‘A miracle indicates mere (litt. naked, yuuv7v) 
grace from above.”—Homil. xlii, tom. v, p. 277, quoted by 
Suicer, Thes. Hecles., p. 1345. Amstel. 1682, fol. 

QUENSTEDT :—Miracula vera et proprie dicta sunt que con- 
tra vim, rebus naturalibus a Deo inditam, cursumque natura- 
lem, sive per extraordinariam Dei potentiam efficiuntur.— 
Theol. Didact. Polem., p. 471. Viteb. 1685, fol. 

Buppevs :—Operationes quibus nature leges ad ordinem et 
conservationem totius hujus universi spectantes re vera suspen- 
duntur.—Jnstit. Theol. Dogmat., p. 245. Lips. 1723. Simi- 
larly Hollaz, Baier, and other of the older Lutheran divines. 

Hoxsses :—A miracle is a work of God (besides his operation 
by way of nature ordained in the creation) done for the mak- 
ing manifest to his elect the mission of an extraordinary min- 
ister for their salvation.—Leviathan, Part iii, 37. Works by 
Molesworth, vol. iii, p. 482. 

Farmer :—That the visible world is governed by stated gen- 
eral rules, commonly called the laws of nature; or that there 
is an order of causes and effects established in every part of the 
system of nature, so far as it falls under our observation, is a 
point which none can controvert. Effects produced by the 
regular operation of the laws of nature, or that are conform- 
able to its established course, are called natural. Effects con- 
trary to this settled constitution and course of things, I esteem 
miraculous. Were the constant motion of the planets to be 
suspended, or a dead man to return to life, each of these would 


304 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


be a miracle; because repugnant to those general rules by 
which this world is governed at all other times.— Dissertation 
on Miracles, p. 1. 

Dwientr:—A miracle is a suspension or counteraction of 
what are called the laws of nature. By the laws of nature I 
intend those regular courses of divine agency which we discern 
in the world around us.— Theology, Serm. 60. 

Warpiaw :—Works involving a temporary suspension of the 
known laws of nature, or a deviation from the established con- 
stitution and fixed order of the universe ;—or perhaps, more 
correctly, of that department of the universe which constitutes 
our system—whose established order and laws we are capable, 
to the full extent requisite for the purpose, of accurately ascer- 
taining :—works, therefore, which can be effected by no power 
short of that which gave the universe its being, and its consti- 
tution and laws.—On Miracles, p. 24. 

See also Stackhouse, History of the Bible, b. viii, sec. iii, 
c.4. Gleig, Additions to Do., vol. iii, p. 241. Marsh, Cowrse 
of Lectures, part vi, sec. xxx, p. 76. Payne, Lectures on 
Christian Theology, vol. ii, p. 8364. Hume, Lssay on Miracles, 
sub init. 


No. 2. a. 


Tomas Aquinas :—Miracula sunt omnia que divinitus fiunt 
preter ordinem communiter servatum in rebus.—Swmma 
Theol., Lib. i, Qu. 105, art. 5, ff. 

Lururr:—Whatever happens beyond law and order we 
must hold for a miracle.— Werke, Bd. i, s. 1855. 

OweEn :—By miracles we understand such effects as are really 
beyond and above the power of natural causes however applied 
unto operation.—Pneumatologia ; or, A Discourse concerning 
the Holy Spirit, p. 114, folio. Lond., 1674. 

Burnet :—A miracle is a work that exceeds all the known 
powers of nature, and that carries in it plain characters of a 
power superior to any human power.—Lxposition of the 
Thirty-nine Articles, p. 62, folio. Lond., 1700. 

Worr :—Supernaturale sive miraculum est cujus ratio sufli- 
ciens in essentia et natura entis non continetur.—Definitiones 
Philosophice collect. a Fr. Chr. Bauermeister, ed. octava, 
p- 112. Vitemb., 1752. 


APPENDIX. 805 


DoEDERLEIN:—Omnis_ effecttis facultate agentis naturali 
major, miraculum dicitur.—Institutio Theol. Christ, i, p. 19, 
ed. 4ta. Norinberg, 1787. 

THoLvoK :—We understand by a miracle an event entirely 
deviating from the course of nature known to us, and which 
has a religious origin and a religious design.— Glaubwiirdigheit 
d. Evang. Gesch. s. 421. 

GiosErtTI:—A miracle, being a phenomenon which cannot 
proceed from the powers and laws which are fixed and ordi- 
nary, argues the extraordinary intervention of the first cause, 
that is God.— Teorica del Sovranaturale, § 181. 

Woops :—Miracles are events which are produced, or events 
which take place, in a manner not conformed to the common 
laws of nature, and which cannot be accounted for according 
to those laws.—Art. Miracle in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia, 
vol. ii, p. 3844. 


No. 2. 6. 


Aveustin.—Quomodo est contra naturam quod est volun- 
tati Dei? quum voluntas tanti utique creatoris condite rei 
cujuslibet natura sit—De Cwit. Dei, 1. xxi, c. 8. 

Brown :—A miracle is as little contrary to any law of nature 
as any other phenomenon. It is only an extraordinary event, 
the result of extraordinary circumstances,—an effect that indi- 
cates a Power of a higher order than the powers which we are 
accustomed directly to trace in phenomena more familiar to us, 
but a Power whose continued and ever-present existence it is 
atheism only that denies.—Inquiry into the Relation of Cause 
and Effect, p. 525, third edition. 

VauGuHan :—By a miracle we do not understand even a sus- 
pension, much less a violation, of natural laws, but simply such 
a control of natural causes as bespeaks an intervention of Tue 
Cause to which they are all subordinate.-—The Age and Chris- 
tianity, p. 82, second edition. 


No. 3. 


ConyBEARE :—Miracles are supernatural effects; that is, such 
as, being above the natural powers of any visible agents, or 
evidently not produced by them, are contrary to the laws of 
God’s acting upon matter, or at least cannot be accounted for 

20 


306 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


by any composition or result of those laws.—Defence of Re- 
vealed Religion, p. 484. Lond., 1782. 

Marox :—Miracula [sunt] opera, non tantum quorum ratio et 
causa a nobis reddi non possit, sed et que sunt supra, preter, 
et contra causas secundas.— Christ. Theol. Medulla, p. 184, ed. 
6ta. Traj. ad Rhenum, 1742. 


No. 4. a. 

Looxr:—A miracle I take to be a sensible operation, which 
being above the comprehension of the spectator, and in his 
opinion contrary to the established course of nature, is taken 
by him to be divine.—Discourse on Miracles. Works, vol. iii, 
p. 451, folio. Lond., 1728. 

REINHARD :—Mutationes a manifestis nature legibus abhor- 
rentes, quorum a nobis nulla potest a viribus naturalibus ratio 
reddi.—Dogmatik, s. 282. 

TIEFTRUNK:—It must not be supposed that the cause of a 
miracle, though it be supersensible, operates without law. 
Everything must be thought under laws, whether it belongs to 
sensible or supersensible nature; only we know not the laws 
of supersensible nature, (the practical law of the reason ex- 
cepted.) Did we know also the mode of working of the super- 
sensible being, what now appears to us miraculous would seem 
natural: for we should then be able to refer it to laws, and 
so to explain it.— Censur des Chr. Protest. Lehrbegriffs, Th. i, 
s. 265. Berlin, 1796. 

Lutz :—Proceeding by analogy we may arrive at a view of 
miracles which does not necessitate our assuming an abrupt 
interruption and suspension of natural causality and all order, 
but which suggests to us a higher order in the background. 
Already has natural history showed to us many such phenom- 
ena, where what was formerly the rule has been superseded, 
and a new rule come to be followed. Such greater and un- 
common phenomena are expansions of nature, which is not to 
be restricted to the narrow stand-point of this earth; in the 
whole, and in many individual cases, a widening of causality in 
a higher order of nature cannot be denied.—Biblische Dog- 
matik, s. 221. Pforzheim, 1847. 

Trenou.—The true miracle is a higher and purer nature 
coming down out of the world of untroubled harmonies into 


APPENDIX. 307 


this world of ours, which so many discords have jarred and 
disturbed, and bringing this back again, though it be but for 
one prophetic moment, into harmony with that higher.— 
Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, p. 15. 


No. 4. 8. 


OxEriovs :—Ut miraculum quidpiam vocetur oportet I. vires 
humanas superet; II. Praeter constantem natures rerum ordi- 
nem sit; II. Si que, in cujuspiam gratiam, deducenda ex edito 
miraculo consequentia est, id ab eo cujus potentia, aut in cujus 
gratiam fit preedici, aut saltem eo tempore, quo eo indiget, 
evenire. . . . Hic tertius miraculi character vanam esse 
ostendit eorum objectionem, qui miracula ordini cuipiam natu- 
reo minus noto, necessario tamen sese evolventi, tribuunt; si 
enim ordo ille nature ignotus est humano generi, qua factum 
ut Prophets, Christusque et Apostoli ejus ordinis effectus ita 
previderint, ut post eorum verba, aut preces, semper eve- 
nerint.—Pneumatologia, sec. iii, c. 8. 

This opinion which was first hinted at by Leibnitz, and 
stands allied to his doctrine of Preéstablished Harmony, has 
been also adopted by the learned and pious Seiler, ( Verntinft. 
Glaube an die Wahrheit des Christenthums, 2 Aufl. Erl. 1818,) 
and by Bonnet, (Recherches Philosophiques sur les preuves du 
Christianisme, Genev., 1770.) 


No. 5. a. 


GERHARD :—Miracula, si non habuerint doctrinsz veritatem 
conjunctam, nihil probant.—Loci Theol., tom. 12, p. 107. 

CrarKke :—The true definition of a miracle in the theological 
sense of the word is this, that it is a work effected in a manner 
unusual or different from the common and regular method of 
Providence, by the interposition either of God himself, or of 
some intelligent agent superior to man, for the proof or evi- 
dence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation to the au- 
thority of some particular person. And if amiracle so worked 
be not opposed by some plainly superior Power, nor be 
brought to attest a doctrine either contradictory in itself, or 
vicious in its consequences, (a doctrine of which kind no mira- 
cles in the world can be sufficient to prove,) then the doctrine 
so attested must necessarily be looked upon as divine, and the 


308 _ CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


workers of the miracle entertained as having infallibly a com- 
mission from God.—Fvidence of Natural and Revealed Re- 
lugion, p. 229, 10th edition. 
To the same effect, Hoadly, Letter to Fleetwood concerning 
Miracles, passim; Doddridge, Course of Lectures, vol. i, 
p. 872, ff. 8d edit.; Penrose, Treatise on the Hvidence 
of the Scripture Miracles, passim; Le Bas, Considera- 
tions on Miracles, passim; Chalmers, Hvidences of the 
Christian Revelation, vol. i, p. 374, in vol. iii of Col- 
lected Works; and several others. 

Morvs :—Effectiones quas e cognita nobis serie ordinis natu- 
reo explicare non possumus....De doctrine veritate prius 
constare debet, quam de miraculo judicari plene ac tuto possit. 
—Theol. Christ. Epitome, § 21, 238. 

Von Ammon :—Debet prius explorari veritas doctrine, quam 
prodigii divinitas—Swmma Theol. Christ., p. 49, edit. 4ta. 

Porret:—Miracula divina sunt extraordinaria quedam 
rerum ad statum realiorem, perfectiorem, ordinatiorem, vel 
etiam justiorem elevatio, procedens ab impulsu spiritus sancti, 
et indivulsa a motibus quibus anime ad Dei reverentiam, 
amorem, sanctitatem, virtutes, felicitatem attrahantur: Dia- 
bolica sunt extraordinaria quedam confusio, qua res men- 
tesque ad statum corruptiorem, miseriorem, vitiosiorem, a Deo, 
a perfectione, a felicitate remotiorem deprimuntur; vel si 
gesticulatione quadam res videantur superficiali modo perfici, 
sub apparenti illa specie latet verissimum destructionis termi- 
nique miserabilis principium.— Vera Methodus inveniendi 
verum, p. 8, § 27. 


No. 6. 


Sprvoza:—Miraculum significat opus cujus causam natura- 
lem exemplo alterius rei solitae explicare non possumus, vel 
saltem ipse non potest qui miraculum scribit aut narrat.— 
Tract. Theologico-politicus, c. iv, 67. 

WEGSOHEIDER:—Defendi potest sola miraculorum notio 
ea... qua tanquam eventus cogitantur mirabiles, qui, Deo 
moderante, ita comparati erant, ut spectatores ad certam prov- 
identise divine efficaciam agnoscendam excitare eosque ad 
fidem nove cujusdam religionis doctori habendam invitare 
possent. Ejusmodi miracula, quamvis aevo rudiori a super- 


APPENDIX. _ 809 


naturali et immediata Dei cooperatione repeterentur, quin a 
simplici tamen naturali rerum ordine, Deo moderante, pro- 
dierint, jam dubitare non _licet.—Jnstitutiones Theologica, 
p. 190, ed. 6ta. 

Dr Werre:—Miracle, rightly considered, is either the fore- 
boding (ahnung) of the divine world-government, or of a su- 
perior power of intellect in nien.—Dogmatik d. Luther. 
Kirche, s. 51. 

SOHLEIERMAOHER :—Miracles, as appearances in the sphere 
of nature, but which must be produced in a natural manner, 
can, of themselves, afford no proof [of revelation.] For, on the 
one hand, Scripture itself ascribes miracles to such as not only 
did not belong to Christianity, but must be ranked among its 
opponents, so that there are no criteria by which to distinguish 
the true from the false; and, on the other hand, we meet with 
too much, unconnected with revelation, which we cannot ex- 
plain naturally, but which we never consider as miraculous, 
and the explanation of which we postpone till we obtain a 
more accurate knowledge, both of the fact itself, and of the 
laws of nature—Der Christl. Glaube, i, s. 116. 

If any reader, on surveying this list of conflicting opinions, 
is ready to exclaim, in the language of Cicero, “ Perturbat nos 
opinionum varietas, hominumque dissensio,” let me urge him 
carefully to peruse the works of Farmer and Wardlaw on 
Miracles, where he will find the balance held by a master hand, 
and the result stated with convincing force. 


* 


vA gF Sein 


en “ és ead 
“ Ni a ys 


bakitn ad Reise tia soerth or ene aa 
eh Ole ey pete ny eet: 
i We poriag:: Sri. 


Woe 
Reid ’ 


ieee aCe see igh 


a | SeNARRRAL, ie uke so d 


Rese! ey eon. Ainbio? ; rae anes 3. 7 ew 
y BS % ' $k 
: ; betins ane: Me Sa 
. i fom bib? 
oe 
i s 
-f 
ts 
n 


Tee nts. seis ae ie ‘ie ty nahin aah * wisi ‘Ais ait ase Cag 
=. peer ete te 7 oe A a AoiRits | 54 +e. ate + ere leh a pea 
: : ate tae us. 
bs as ways pate 


nh Tike 9 
fray 


—a 


o Wy fs Ne ial fal? De iat bars af 
* iia watrigth, ¢ a ae aT | igi Bill ae eae 
iy Ue re ia lid oA Ri eg ED de 
Gtay i oi f heed xy ne ees ae 
# i. Sie PP Be ; pian 


INDEX. 


I, PRINCIPAL MATTERS. 


Acer, the primitive, not unduly 
credulous, 109. 

Apostles, Acts of the, attest Luke’s 
Gospel, 39. 

Argument, general statement of 
the, 10, 11, 292. 

Augustine on the discrepancies of 
the Gospels, 205. 

Bacon on the design of miracles, 
211. 

Books, sacred, care of by all 
peoples, 82. 

Cadmus, ancient myth of, 105. 

Celsus, testimony of, 67, 87, 180. 

Character of Jesus Christ, its lead- 
ing features, 130; its historical 
reality, 140; bearing of on the 
claims of his religion, 153. 

Christ, resurrection of, 112, 162; 
personal character of, 129; 
miracles of, 158; predictions of, 
226; teaching of, 254; asserted 
the divine origin of his doctrine, 
153, 290; claimed to be the 
promised Messiah, 154. 

Christians, the early, deeply in- 
terested in the authenticity of 
their sacred books, 24; com- 
petency of, for such inquiries, 
25; the four Gospels universally 
received by, 73; and used, 77 ; 
their care of their sacred books, 
82, 83; character of, incompati- 
ble with the mythic hypothesis, 
118. 


Christianity, commemorative rites 
of, inexplicable on the mythic 
hypothesis, 116; experimental 
evidence of, 8. 

Creation, miracle of, 188. 

Discrepancies alleged in the Gos- 
pels, 200. 

Doctrine of Christ from God, 285. 

Hichhorn, strictures on, 41, 57, 
59, 74, 86, 90; his hypothesis 
of the origin of the Gospels, 72; 
his allegation that the Gospels 
have been corrupted, 86; his 
admission of the authenticity | 
of the fourth Gospel fatal to his 
theory, 91. 

Essenes, the, 264. 

Evidences of Christianity, 8, 9. 

Experience, appeal to, against 
miracles, 196. 

Fathers, the apostolic, testimony 
of, to the Gospels, 41; their 
mode of citing Scripture, 41, 42 ; 
integrity of their writings, 44. 

Fictitious writing, peculiarities of, 
144, 

Forgeries, literary, difficulty of, 
17; invariably detected, 17, 85; 
the Gospels not such, 18, 29. 

Genius, human limits of, 141. 

Gospel, hypothesis of an orig- 
inal, 73. : 

Gospel, the, by Matthew, 46; by 
Mark, 48; by Luke, 39; by 
John, 54, 55, 299. 


312 


Gospels, genuineness of, 153; in- 
tegrity of, 72; unity of style, 
85; date of, 247; if forgeries, 
how produced? 29; hypotheses 
examined, 92; number of MSS. 
of, in the second ceiitury, 77; 
alleged corruptions of, 87; 
mythic theory of, 96. 

Hegel, philosophy of, 121, 126. 

Heretics, ancient, their witness 
for the Gospels, 67, 70; charged 
by the Christians with corrupt- 
ing the New Testament, 83. 

Historical evidence, criteria of, 
202. 

Hume’s objection to miracles, 197. 

Infidel, the, what he must believe, 
173. 

Ireneus, his testimony to the Gos- 
pels, 44; on John’s Gospel, 298. 

Jews, the, offered no counter 
miracles to those of Christ, 175. 

Jewish people, state of, in the 
time of Christ, 263. 

John, Gospel by, 54, 55, 299. 

Justin Martyr’s testimony to the 
Gospels, 55; his memoirs of the 
apostles, 55; extracts from, 295. 

Kingdom of God, or heaven, mean- 
ing of the phrase, 257 ; doctrine 
of, as taught by Christ, 269. 

Laws, physical and moral, 191. 

Luke, Gospel by, referred to in 
Acts, 39. 

Mai, Cardinal, his discovery of 
Cicero de Republica, 58, 59. 

Manuscripts of the Gospels in the 
second century, 77; still extant 
and collated, 78. 

Marcion, his Gospel, 68. 

Mark, Gospel by, testimony of 
Papias to, 48. 

Marsyas, ancient myth of, 94. 

Matthew, Gospel by, testimony of 
Papias to, 46. 

Marsh, Bishop, strictures on, 59; 
his hypothesis of an original 
Gospel, 72, 738. 

Miracle, a, nature of, 208; various 
definitions of, 302; a divine 
work, 213; what it directly 
proves, 216; use of, 221. 


CHRIST AND-ORISTIANITY. 


Miracles of Christ, 158; cannot 
be explained naturally, 163; 
witnesses of credible, 165; pub- 
licity of, 167; not incredible, 
186, 187; or impossible, 187; 
objections of Strauss to, 192; 
may be divided into three class- 
es, 208; appealed to by Christ 
as a proof of his divine com- 
mission, 221; definition of, 302. 

Miller, Ottfried, theory of myths, 
94. 

Myth, nature of a, 93. 

Mythic system, a, slowly formed, 
100. 

Myths of Homer and Ovid sub- 
stantially the same, 102. 

Newton, his rules of philosophizing, 
212; on hypotheses, 213. 

Origen attests the integrity of the 
Gospels, 84. 

Papias, notices of, 44, 45; testi- 
mony to the Gospels, 44, 45, 48. 

Parcimony, law of, 293. 

Pharisees, the, 264, 267. 

Philosophy, German, 121, 184, 

Pilate, Acts of, spurious, 178; sent 
to Rome accounts of Jesus 
Christ, 178. 

Predictions of Christ concerning 
his Church, 226, 227; concern- 
ing events subsequent to his 
ascension, 228; concerning the 
destruction of Jerusalem, 233 ; 
credibility of the, 288; not 
mere happy conjectures, 251,252. 

Presbyter, John the, 44, 48, 301. 

Prophecy, criteria of, 237; evi- 
dence of, 249. 

Ptolemy cites the Gospels, 68. 

Publicity of Christ’s miracles, 167. 

Quadratus, the evangelist, on the 
miracles of Christ, 167. 

Sadducees, the, 264. 

Scribes, the, contrasted as teach- 
ers with Christ, 280. 

Strauss, strictures on, 39, 44, 47, 
49, 51, 99, 119, 200, &e.; his 
“Life of Jesus critically con- 
sidered,” 92; his theory of the 
origin of the Gospels, 93; his 
objections to miracles, 192, 


INDEX. 


Talmud, the, confirmation of the | 


Gospels by, 175. 
Tatian, his Diatessaron, 67. 


Teaching of Christ, 155; its pe- 


culiar excellences, 276. 


Testament, the New, dialect of, 


18, 85. 


Theodotus on Matthew and Luke, 


68. 
Tradition, oral, insufficiency of, 32; 


effect of on popular beliefs, 101. 


513 


Vagueness of recent infidel writers, 
184. 


Valentinus possessed the Gos- 
pels, 68. 

Versions, ancient, of the Gos- 
pels, 78. 


Witnesses for Christ’s miracles 
credible, 165; for his predic- 
tions, 239. 


II, AUTHORS CITED OR REFERRED TO, 


Agrippa, Cornelius, 128. 
Ammon, Dr, F. W. Ph. von, 308. 
Aquinas, Thomas, 304. 
Augustine, 128, 205, 206. 
Aurelius Victor, 232. 
Bacon, Lord, 211, 216, 
Baier, Dr. J. W., 303. 
Basnage, J., 44. 

Basilides, 69. 

Beard, Dr., 206. 
Berkeley, Bishop, 218. 
Buddeus, Dr. J., Fr., 303. 


Bunsen, Chey. C. K., 58, 59, 70, 


185, 
Burnet, Bishop, 304. 
Campbell, Principal, 257. 
Casaubon, Is., 179. 
Cave, Dr. W., 44. 
Celsus, 67, 87, 180. 
* Chalmers, Dr., Thomas, 214. 
Chronicon Alexandrinum, 45, 
Chrysostom, 303. 
Clarke, Dr. Samuel, 219, 307. 
Clement of Alexandria, 64, 68, 
83; 91. 
Conybeare, Bishop, 305. 
Creech, Thomas, 80. 
Davidson, Dr. Samuel, 73. 
De Dieu, L., 18. 
De Wette, Dr. M. L., 257, 309. 
Doederlein, Dr. J. ©., 305. 


Douglas, James, Esq., of Cavers, 


185. 
Dwight, Timothy, LL.D., 304. 
Edwards, Jonathan, 175. 
Eichhorn, Dr. J. G., 41, 57, 59, 72, 
74, 86, 90, 300. 
Epiphanius, 68. 


Eusebius, 44, 48, 68, 88, 84, 167, 
232, 234. 

Farmer, Hugh, 303, 

Foster, John, 220, 

Gerhard, Dr. J., 307. 

Gieseler, Dr. J. K. L., 175, 

Gioberti, Vincenzo, 222, 305, 

Gleig, Bishop, 304. 

Griesbach, Dr. J. J., 65. 

Grote, George, Esq., 125, 

Hamilton, Sir W., Bart., 126, 185, 
294, 

Hegel, Dr. G. W. F., 121, 126, 

Heracleon, 299, 

Herodotus, 82. 

Hippolytus, 59, 70. 

Hobbes, Thomas, 303. 

Horace, 80. 

Horne, T. H., 19. 

Hug, Dr. Leonhard, 19, 67, 69. 

Hume, David, 197, 304, 

Treneus, £4, 56, 66, 69, 83. 

Jortin, Dr. J., 233. 

Josephus, 230, 235, 265, 

Justin Martyr, 55, 56, 57, 62, 83, 
178. 

Juvenal, 172. 

Koppe, J. Bj., 258. 

Kuhnoel, Ch. G., 257, 258. 

Lardner, Dr. N., 44, 45, 66, 175, 
178, 179, 181, 300. 

Lawson, Ch., 221. 

Le Bas, C. W., 308. 

Le Clere, J., 307. 

Leibnitz, Baron yon, 307. 

Livy, 82. 

Locke, John, 207. 

Luther, Martin, 304. 


314 


Lutz, Dr. J. L., Sam., 306. 
Mackay, R. W., 189. 

Mai, Cardinal, 58. 

Marck, Dr. J., 306. 

Marsh, Bishop, 58, 59, 73, 304. 
Menzel, Wolfgang, 185. 

' Miller, Hugh, 189. 

Morus, Dr. 8. F. N., 308. 
Miller, Ottfried, 94. 

Newton, Sir L, 212. 

Newton, Bishop, 237. 

Niebuhr, B. G., 28. 

Norton, Andrews, 54, 61, 67, 78. 
Origen, 67, 68, 84, 85, 87, 88. 
Owen, John, 304. 

Pagi, Ant., 46. 

Paley, Dr. William, 21. 
Payne, Dr. George, 304. 
Pearson, Bishop, 176. 

Penrose, John, 308. 
Philostratus, 230. 

Poiret, Pierre, 308. 

Quadratus, 167. 

Quenstedt, Dr. J. And., 303. 
Reid, Dr. Thomas, 212. 
Reinhard. Dr. F. V., 306. 


CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


Seiler, Dr. G. F., 307. 
Seneca, 232. 

Servius, 82. 

Shakspeare, W., 126, 
Shuttleworth, Bishop, 188. 
Spinoza, Ben., 308. 
Stackhouse, Dr. Th., 304. 
Storr, Dr. G. Ch., 257. 


Strauss, Dr. David, 39, 44, 46, 49, 


50, 51, 92, 99, 119, 121, &e. 
Tacitus, 172, 232. 
Terence, 299. 
Tertullian, 69, 83, 178. 
Theodoret, 68. 
Theophilus of Antioch, 300. 
Thirlwall, Bishop, 74. 


Tholuck, Dr. F. A. G., 206, 258, 


305, 
Tieftrunk, Dr. J. H., 306. 
Trench, R. Chevenix, 307. 
Vaughan, Dr. Robert, 262, 305. 
Veysie, Daniel, 73. 
Wardlaw, Dr. Ralph, 220, 304. 
Wegscheider, Dr. J. A. L., 308. 
Whately, Archbishop, 206. 
Winer, Dr. G. B., 18. 


Schleiermacher Dr. F. E. D., 73, | Wolf, Ch. von, 304. 


309. 


THE END. 


PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & LANAHAN, 


805 Broadway, New York. 


Reasons for becoming a Methodist 


By Rev. I. Smrru, for some Years a Member of the Close-Com. 
munion Calvinist Baptist Church. Including a brief Account of 
the Author’s Religious Experience up to the Time of his becom 
ing a Methodist. 


18mo,. pp. 160. 


This work was written by Rev. I.-Smith, now a member of the New 
England Conference. It was printed in Boston a few years ago, and 
seventeen thousand copies have been sold. Knowing the work from its 
first issue, and believing it to be calculated to do great good, we bave- 
recently bought the plates, and shall soon bring out the nineteenth 
edition, with some improvements. Brother Smith was formerly a Calvin- 
istic Close-Communion Baptist, but being placed in circumstances obliging 
him to consider the principles he professed to believe, he was led to re- 
nounce them. He subsequently joined the Methodists, and became a 
preacher. This book develops the reasons which influenced his action in 
the premises, and they are well stated. Preachers who are molested by 
Baptist influences, will find this work just the thing to circulate. Wa 
have put it upon our list to extend its usefulness, more than to make 
money out of it. 


The Pioneers of the West; 


Or, Life in the Woods. By W. P. SrrickLanp. 
12mo., pp. 403. 


This decidedly popular book, which sketches to the life the Pioneer Ex- 
plorers, Settlers, Preachers, Hunters, Lawyers, Doctors, School Teachers 
and Institutions of the West, is meeting with an extensive sale. 


The True Woman; 


Or, Life and Happiness at Home and Abroad. By Jessz T. 
Prox, D.D., Author of “ The Central Idea of Christianity.” 


12mo., pp. 400. 
——_—_—_——_- Gilt edges 
Gilt edges 
Morocco 


{n this volume the author has illustrated his ideal of female characver 
vy a series of didactic precepts and familiar examples. His standard is 
10t taken from the prevailing customs and opinions of society, but from 
the highest teachings of Christian ethics. In his remarks on the intel- 
iectual cultivation of woman, he condemns novel-reading in decided 
terms, regarding it as a ‘‘crime, murderous to the heart, the intellect. 
and the body ;”’ while he as warmly recommends the perusal of literary 
periodicals, and insists on having access to at least one daily o1 nie 
newspaper. The work isiwritten with great earnestness and feeling, wit. 
wa occasional exuberance of expression —WN. Y. Tribune. 


BOOKS 


PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & LANAHAN, 
805 Broadway, New York. 


SEO eee 


eens 


Yompendium of Methodism, (23: Evrrox, Revissp.) 


A Compendium of Methodism: embracing the History and Preseni 
Condition of its various Branches in all Countries; with a Defense 
of its Doctrinal, Governmental, and Prudential Peculiarities. By 
James Porrer, D. D. 12mo. 


“This work is a valuable acquisition to our Church literature. It embodies much 
important information, arranged in a natural and convenient form, and affords g 
good general outline of Methodism—its history, doctrine, government, and pe- 
culiarities—without the trouble of extensive research on the part of the reader. 
It is a work of much merit. I do cheerfully commend it, as a whole, to the fa- 
vorable consideration of our friends and the public generally."—T. A. Morais, 
Bishop of the M. BE. Church. 


Porter on Revivals, (texrm Txovsayn.) 


Revivals of Religion, their Theory, Means, Obstructions, Uses, and 
Importance; with the Duty of Christians in regard to them. By 
James Porter, D. D. 16mo. : 


Five editions in little more than a year, attest the excellence of this essay on a 
subject of vast importance to the Christian world. The topic is treated fully and 
faithfully, and in a spirit of Christian love which will commend it to all.— 
Evening Bulletin. 

This volume ought to be widely circulated, and read by all whose prayer is, 
“Thy kingdom come.”—Richmond Christian Advocate. 

A work adapted for general circulation among the people. 


Methodist Social Hymns. 


Compiled by Rev. SrepHEN Parks. 24mo. 


Biography of Rev. John Clark. 


The Life of Rey. John Clark. By Rev. B. M. Harz. With Portrait. 
12mo. 


Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, 


The Backwoods Preacher. Edited by W. P. Srrickitanp. With Por- 
trait. 12mo. 


A book full of thrilling incidents connected with itinerant ‘ife in the wildernesz 
ef the West, and written in the author’s quaint and nervous style. The book 
contains a most striking likeness of the author, executed by the best New-York 
artist. 


French Mission Life. 


Krench Mission Life; or, Sketches of Remarkable Uonversions, and 
other Events, among French Romanists in the City of Detroit. With 
Five Letters to the Roman Catholic Bishop residing ip that City. 
By Rev. T. Carrer. 16mo. 


BOOKS 


PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & LANAHAN, 
805 Broadway, New York. 


—_~ eee 
Pr Ne sO 


A NEW PRONOUNCING BIBLE, 


fu which all the proper names are divided and accented as they 
should be pronounced, and a copious and original selection of 
References and numerous Marginal Readings are given, to- 
gether with Introductions to each Book, and numerous Tables 
and Maps. 
Royal octavo. 


This is the onzy one in print of the kind, embracing new and 1m- 
proved maps, new REFERENCES, and much instruction necessary to a right 
understanding of the Scriptures—proper names divided and accented as 


Shey are to be pronounced. 


SKETCHES OF 


NEW ENGLAND DIVINES. 


By Rey. D. Snrerman. 
12mo. 


Giving true and interesting biographical sketches of the following 

distinguished divines: John CBtton Richard Mather,‘ Roger Williams, 

acrease Mather, Cotton Mather, Eleazer Mather, John Warham, Jesse 

Lee, Jonathan Edwards, Elijah Hedding, Timothy Dwight, Wilbur Fisk, 

Ezra Stiles, Lemuel Haynes, Billy Hibbard Timothy Merritt, Jonathan 

i ridge, Nathaniel Emmons, Joshua Crowell, George Pickering, Stephen 
lin. 


THE CHRISTIAN LAW YER: 


Being a Portraiture of the Life and Character of Witiram 


Grorer BAKER. 
12mo., 


This is a well written memoir, and deserves to be generally read. A 
good holiday gift-book for our legal friends. 


LIFE OF DR. ADAM CLARKE. 


By Rev. J. W. Erneriper, M.A. 
With a Portrait. 12mo. 


The volume contains about five hundred pages, and is ornamented with 
an excellent likeness of its distinguished subject. No one can understand 
filly the great commentator and the secret of his greatness without read- 
og this book. It should be bought and read through the whole Church, 
snd through the whole community. The book should be in every li- 
brary, public and private. The doctor belonged to the whole world. 


THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 


And the Final Condition of the Wicked carefully considered. 
Rky Rev. Roperr W. Lanovis. 
12mo. 
“ As a whole, it is worthy of mien praisE.”—WV, Y. Evangelist. 


BOOK CONCERN PUBLICATIONS, 


805 Broadway, New York. 


Quotations from the Poets. 


Moral and Religious Quotations from the Poets. Compiled 
by Rev. Wizuiam Rioz, A.M. Large octavo, with a frontis- 
piece. 

Sheep 
Half calf, marbled edges, with two plates. 
Royal octavo ed., tinted paper, nine steel plates, mor., gilt 
Do. do. do. extra gilt 
A volume rich in its gathered sweetness from the wide field of 

English literature. We recognize here many familiar passages, some 

old bits of poetry, and gems from the later minstrels who have made 

melody in our own noble mother tongue.—/. Y. Hvangelist. 


We have seen many dictionaries of quotations, but this surpasses 
them all in extent and system.—W. Y. Observer. 


It is the first book of the kind that has appeared for many years 
and is of rare excellence. It meets a longfelt want.—Boston hecorder 


A unique and valuable gift-book appropriate to all seasons.—Spring- 
field Republican. 


He must be a dainty epicure who will not find abundant gratitica- 
tion for his intellectual palate in this copious and well-ordered feast 
of fat chings.—Zion’s Herald. . 


The most complete and well-arranged work of the kind in the 
English language.—The World. 


New History of Methodism. 


The B:story of the Religious Movement of the Eighteenth 
Century, called Methodism, considered in its different De 
nominational Forms, and its Relations to British and Amer- 
ican Protestantism. By Ase, Stevens, LL.D. Three 
Volumes. From the Origin of Methodism to its Hundreth 
Anniversary. 


12mo. 
8vo. Ilustrated, 


Hibbard on the Psalms. 


The Psalms Chronologically Arranged, with Historical {ntro- 
ductions, and a General Introduction to the whole Book. 
By F. G. Hissarp. 

8vo. Half calf 


Whedon’s Commentary. 


A Commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, In 
tended for Popular Use. By D. D. Wuepon, D.D. 
12mo. Muslin 


BOOK CONCERN PUBLICATIONS, 


805 Broadway, New York. 


Pilgrim’s Progress, 
With numerous illustrations, 
12mo. Imitation morocco, gilt ......ceccces cece eesee 


Ministry or ES 
Muslin . 
Gilt 


COO SN SASS OPS C198: 8) 0 (00 0 016 O'S 0:6. 6:410 6080 0.0 8 6.610 6 0:60 680 6 be 


My Sister Margaret. 


Illustrated. Muslin.. epocecceoeesocece 
Do. PUIGAIE wet de ners cec ce tee 


Itinerant Side; 


Or, Pictures of Life-in shee Itinerancy. With engravings, 
AMOSIRTE Ss 5 5 SSisi5/a a «s/s: ERE GOES a Bos CERES RR SESE 


Young Lady’s Counselor. 


By Rev. Danret Wise. 
EMG Rene dooce «cvs «Si eins cis's oy vege ties Cabeteans teneee 


Young Man’s Counselor. 


By Rev. Dantex Wiss. 


RES aia 0:0 coe «0 $4.06 ME SEREEE exe a IER « nab ee eee eee 
MATE COGS)... 4.55 wts's Me VES Sees eo Ob wy ewictive Se ed peasesee 


Pleasant Pathways. 


By Rev. DanrEL Wisk. 


Pearls for the Little Ones. 


UB IN Ome MUS bits ia. steerer a aectoteoe: we Remote se eee eet i ees a 
Nothing can exceed the interest of this new wor ousan: 
have Bega sold, and thousands more will be. It is a perfect take 

with all classes. 


Hidden Treasure. 
Illustrated. Muslin .......- SIN aki d nae: eeehscece 


BOOK CONCERN PUBLICATIONS, 


805 Broadway, New York. 


———— —_—_— —4 ——. 


Life and Times of Asbury. — 


The Pioneer Bishop; or, the Life and Times of Francis As . 
bury. By W. P. Srrioxnanp. With an Introduction by 
Naruan Banos, D.D. 


12mo. Half calf 
Full calf, gilt 
Morocco 


Harmony of the Gospels. 


Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels. By Jamzs Strona, 
S.T.D. Beautifully illustrated by Maps and Engrayings. 
8vo. Sheep 


Clarke’s Commentary. 


Imperial 8vo.,6 vols. Turkey mor., full gilt, and antique 


Hymns. 


A variety of sizes and styles of binding. 


Hymns and Tunes. 


Morocco antique 


Biographical Sketches. 


8vo. Imitation moroccu 


This splendid book contains sketches of Wesley, M’Kendree, 
Emory, Roberts, Hedding, Fletcher, Garrettson, Fisk, Pickering 
Levings, Olin, and Bunting, and a sketch of the Old New England 
Conference, and is most superbly illustrated. 


The True Woman. 


By. a+ 8oKn,7D.D. 


12mo. Muslin, gilt 
Morocco 


Friendships of the Bible. 


12mo. Muslin 
Silk 


z 


Here are beautifully displayed the most touching incidents of humaz 
friendship that are found in the Book of books. 


Ministering Children : 


A Story showing how even a Child may be as a Ministering 
Angel of Love to the Poor and Sorrowful. 
I astrated. Muslin 
Do. Gilt edges 
Do. Morocco and fuli ca!f 


WSF go hie i 
ae 


he ¥ 
. + bla 
Pes, ws 


ey 


ywads 


wi 


| 
| 


i 


l 


i 


ll 


